London Borough of Lewisham (202453015)

Decision
Case ID	202453015
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lewisham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	8 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat with a private garden. He has reported disrepair issues in the property and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours for several years. In January 2024 the resident instructed solicitors to pursue a disrepair claim. He confirmed that he was no longer represented from January 2025. The resident is unhappy that the landlord has still not resolved the reported issues. The landlord recorded that the resident has learning difficulties and a mental health condition.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reports of pest infestation.
   3. Reports of drainage issues.
   4. Reports of ASB.
   5. Requests for a new fence to be installed in his garden.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation.
   3. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues is outside of our jurisdiction.
   4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a new fence to be installed in his garden.
   6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. In summary we have found that:
   1. The landlord unreasonably delayed dealing with the resident’s reports of damp and mould after he confirmed he was ready for it to start works in his property.
   2. The landlord failed to uphold its commitment to arrange a pest control inspection and it did not offer any next steps to resolve the issue raised.
   3. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues was not escalated to stage 2. Therefore, it has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
   4. The landlord took some steps in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB, however it did not follow the process set out in its ASB policy.
   5. The landlord failed to fully explain its position regarding the fence in relation to the terms of the tenancy agreement.
   6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy at both stages of its internal process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 February 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £500 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. £125 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation. £75 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 05 February 2026
	Order The landlord must write to the resident to explain its position on responsibility for the fence, with reference to the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord must confirm whether a fence is in place, whether it installed the fence, and whether the fence poses a health and safety risk. If necessary, the landlord should inspect the fence to make this assessment. If the landlord concludes that it is responsible for the fence, it must also confirm when it will repair or replace it.	No later than 05 February 2026
	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects all the rooms in the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the damp and mould and pest infestation Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issues (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 05 February 2026
	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works identified during the inspection for which it is responsible are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 19 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 March 2025	The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. He said that: the damp and mould in his flat remained unresolved and had worsened over time the landlord had not addressed his reports of rat infestation the wastewater from his washing machine was coming up through the sink he was experiencing ongoing disturbances from his neighbours, including items being thrown into his garden which attracted foxes   The resident told the landlord that the issues reported had a significant impact on his physical and mental health. He requested that the landlord move him to another property. He also confirmed that he no longer had legal representation.
26 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint and said that the resident’s disrepair claim remained open. It said the resident refused a mould wash on 9 September 2024 while seeking legal advice. It confirmed its contractors would contact the resident within 10 working days to re-offer this as an interim measure while it worked towards a more durable solution with its disrepair team.   The landlord said a plumber attended on 19 April 2024 for a reported kitchen sink leak but could not gain access, so it closed the repair. It also referred the resident to its repairs guide, stating that washing machine blockages were his responsibility.   It confirmed that the primary concern regarding rats was that they were entering the property through large holes in the bathroom and toilet. It recommended the resident arrange a pest control visit and provided contact details for its pest control team. It said that this service was chargeable, however some residents might be eligible for free treatment.   The landlord also confirmed that one of its housing officers spoke to the resident on 24 March 2025 about his reports of ASB. It said evidence was required and recommended downloading the Noise App. It also said it would send a letter to all residents on 4 April 2025 about noise and feeding foxes.
23 June 2025	The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said he had already provided proof that he was no longer represented or pursuing the disrepair claim. He said that the landlord had previously advised him that all rooms in the flat, as well as the garden patio, would be “redone” due to ongoing damp and mould problems. He was unhappy that these promises had not been fulfilled and said he had not been contacted to book any work since his stage 1 complaint. He said the property was unsuitable for him and requested to be relocated.   The resident said he had been reporting disturbances from his neighbour, including noise, but the landlord had not taken any meaningful action. He also said he wanted the landlord to install a missing fence on the left-hand side of his garden for privacy and safety. He disagreed with the landlord’s previous stance that installing the fence was his responsibility.   The resident also said he was disappointed with the landlord’s communication and preferred to be contacted in writing.
18 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that while the resident said he was no longer represented, its solicitors understood that his disrepair claim was still active. It apologised for its contractors not contacting him after its stage 1 response. It said it would arrange a new inspection to plan works and asked the resident to email its repairs team to confirm an appointment. It also said its pest control team tried to contact the resident in October 2024 to book an appointment but were unable to reach him, so the issue was passed back to the disrepair team.   The landlord said it needed evidence of the noise disturbances before taking action, and that it had not received any recordings to date. It told the resident about its professional witness service and provided their details. It confirmed that it sent a block letter on 4 April 2025 and that its housing officer attempted to contact him on 26 June 2025 to discuss his concerns and left a voicemail.   Regarding the fence, the landlord said it does not carry out fence repairs or installations that divide individual gardens, and that this was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord also said it did not believe the home was uninhabitable and therefore could not offer permanent rehousing or temporary accommodation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us because he was dissatisfied that the landlord had still not resolved the issues he reported. He said the condition of the property and the ASB had a significant impact on his life. The resident said that these issues render the property unsuitable for him. He requested compensation and for the landlord to resolve the problems and install a fence in his garden.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

6. We have previously investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, pests and ASB. Our determination issued on 4 September 2024 considered these issues up until the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 16 April 2024. We may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which we have already decided upon. Therefore, we have only considered events which happened after that date. Any references to our previous determination are made for context only.
7. The resident told us that the issues reported have had a significant impact on his physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

8. The landlord said it offered the resident an appointment for a mould wash on 9 September 2024, which he declined as he was seeking legal advice. We understand that at the time the resident was still represented by his solicitors in pursuing a disrepair claim against the landlord. However, no claim had been filed in court.
9. On 29 October 2024 the landlord emailed the resident outlining the scope of works to address the damp and mould and asked him to provide access. There is no evidence to show that the resident responded to this email. We understand that at the time he was still in communication with his solicitors.
10. The resident contacted us on 17 January 2025 and confirmed he was no longer represented. He said he wanted to proceed with repairs. We passed this information onto the landlord on the same date. However, we have not seen evidence that it contacted the resident to arrange any works. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so, as it was aware that the problems it previously identified affected all rooms in the property.
11. As part of its stage 1 response on 26 March 2025 the landlord told the resident its contractors would contact him within 10 working days to re-offer the mould wash. This did not happen. The landlord apologised for this oversight at stage 2 and said it wanted to inspect the property again to plan works. It asked the resident to email the relevant team to arrange a suitable appointment. This was reasonable given the time elapsed since it last inspected the property and as the resident previously said he preferred to communicate in writing. The landlord followed up on 22 July 2025, but there is no evidence the resident responded.
12. While the landlord acted reasonably by offering a further inspection, it unreasonably delayed making this offer after the resident confirmed on 17 January 2025 that he was ready to proceed. Although there was uncertainty about legal representation due to conflicting information from solicitors, it was unreasonable for the landlord to pause dealing with the issue for this reason. This is because there is no evidence that a claim was filed in court and the resident had confirmed his willingness to engage in repairs. The landlord’s inaction and failed promise at stage 1 caused delays of 6 months before it asked the resident to email to arrange an appointment, against its policy timescale for routine repairs of 20 working days.
13. As a result of the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay him £500 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failures which adversely affected the resident. It takes into account the impact on a vulnerable resident.
14. The resident also requested to be rehoused due to issues in the property and his vulnerabilities. The landlord confirmed he was not eligible for permanent or temporary rehousing under its policies as it considered the home was not uninhabitable. It also provided guidance on his housing options, which was reasonable. The landlord can reassess the property’s habitability once it gains access for an inspection.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation.
Finding	Maladministration

15. The landlord’s pest management policy requires it to consider treatments for rat infestations, mostly as part of block control programmes, but in individual properties in some circumstances.
16. The landlord previously identified holes in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom that may have allowed rats to enter. It arranged an appointment on 9 May 2024 to repair these and investigate further. It is unclear whether this appointment took place. The landlord said its pest control team attempted to contact the resident in October 2024 but were unable to reach him. When the landlord emailed the resident the scope of works on 29 October 2024, this included works to block holes.
17. There is no evidence that the pest issue was raised again by the landlord or the resident between October 2024 and the complaint on 5 March 2025. At stage 1 the landlord directed the resident to its pest control team to book an appointment, which it said he might have to pay for. It is unclear why the landlord did not re-offer to block up the holes it had previously identified and offered to remedy. However, it was reasonable for it to suggest an inspection to further investigate the issues.
18. On 31 March 2025 the landlord noted that the resident was unable to book the free treatment. It said it had referred this to the relevant team to arrange an appointment. However, there is no evidence it followed this up, which was unreasonable and caused a delay. The landlord did not identify this failure at stage 2 and offered no next steps to address the pest concerns. It simply said it had offered works in October 2024 but made no reference to events or promises made in 2025. This further delayed resolution.
19. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £125 for the likely distress and inconvenience its failures have caused the resident. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

20. We have seen no evidence the resident requested to escalate his complaint about drainage to stage 2 of the complaints process and the landlord has not considered this issue at stage 2. This means that the complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
Finding	Service failure

21. There is history of the resident reporting ASB. We understand that the previous case was closed in April 2024. We have not seen evidence of any reports made after this date until the resident submitted his stage 1 complaint on 5 March 2025. He said his neighbours were throwing food out of windows, attracting foxes into his garden. In his escalation request, he also reported noise nuisance from neighbouring properties.
22. The landlord said its housing officer discussed the resident’s concerns with him on 24 March 2025. We have not seen evidence of this communication and it is unclear from the records whether the landlord classified the reports as ASB or nuisance under its ASB policy. However, it called the resident 7 working days outside of its 5 working day initial response timescale, which applied to both types of reports. We have also not seen evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment, prepared an action plan or confirmed how often it would keep in contact with the resident. These steps were required under its ASB policy.
23. At stage 1, the landlord told the resident it needed evidence of noise disturbances to investigate further. It said he could submit this via the Noise App. It also confirmed it would send a block letter to all residents on 4 April 2025 about noise and asked them not to feed foxes.
24. At stage 2, the landlord offered its professional witness service to help gather evidence of noise disturbances and gave the resident information on how to arrange a visit. It also said it left a voicemail for the resident on 26 June 2025 to discuss ASB. The resident called back on 30 June and 15 July 2025, but the housing officer was not available. The landlord failed to acknowledge this or confirm when the resident could expect to be contacted.
25. It was reasonable that the landlord requested evidence of the noise and gave the resident 2 options about how this could be provided. Its decision to send a block letter about noise and feeding foxes was one of the options available to it under its ASB policy. However, it is unclear why the landlord considered this the most appropriate action and how it communicated its reasoning to the resident. Overall, its communication about the steps it was taking was unclear and its initial response was delayed. It did not acknowledge that the resident was awaiting a call back and instead stated that it had last left a voicemail.
26. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £75 for the distress and inconvenience its poor communication likely caused the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, however it may not have significantly affected the overall outcome.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a fence to be installed in his garden.
Finding	Service failure

27. The resident asked the landlord to install a fence in his garden for privacy and safety reasons. He said that he was concerned anyone could gain access into his garden easily and break into his property because he was on the ground floor. The landlord told the resident that he was responsible for the fence on the left-hand side according to the repair responsibilities listed on its website. This says that residents are responsible for fencing repairs to individual properties. However, it does not specify circumstances in which this position may differ.
28. The tenancy agreement says the resident is responsible for fencing repairs to individual properties unless the fence was installed by the landlord or poses a health and safety hazard. The records do not confirm whether a fence is currently in place or whether it was installed by the landlord. The landlord failed to comment on whether it deemed that there was a health and safety hazard, despite the resident raising safety concerns.
29. The landlord therefore failed to fully explain its position in response to the resident’s request. This amounted to a service failure. We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident explaining its position, with reference to the terms of the tenancy agreement.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

30. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaints Handling Code April 2024 (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
31. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 15 working days and its stage to response within 20 working days. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Code. Its responses were adequate and addressed all points raised by the resident.

Learning

32. Our Spotlight report on Damp and Mould highlights the importance of continuing repairs even after the pre-action protocol has commenced. If the landlord had followed this guidance, it would not have paused works while waiting for confirmation as to the status of the resident’s representation. This could have prevented unnecessary delays and escalation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. Landlords are expected to maintain clear records showing actions taken and the reasoning behind its decisions. In this case, the landlord’s ASB records lacked detail, which makes it difficult to assess its actions when these are called into question.

Communication

34. Landlords should maintain clear and consistent communication with residents about the progress of reported issues and the reasons for any decisions made. In this case, the landlord has not provided evidence of regular updates regarding the actions taken. Some of its correspondence referred only to historical matters and did not reflect more recent developments.