London Borough of Lewisham (202509103)

Background

1. The resident reported ongoing damp and mould in the property. The resident said this has led to health problems including breathing difficulties, which he made the landlord aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord failed to follow its damp and mould policies and procedures, delayed unreasonably and did not communicate expected timescales for repairs to take place. It did not consider the resident’s health or alternative accommodation. Its failings caused prolonged uncertainty and distress for the resident.
5. The landlord did not address all aspects of the complaint, in line with our Complaint Handling Code.

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.

6.    Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. We received information about events that occurred after the landlord issued its final complaint response on 23 July 2025. A key part of our role is to assess how the landlord responded to the complaint, so we have limited our investigation to matters up to that date to ensure the landlord has a fair opportunity to respond. However, because the landlord committed to certain actions in its final response, such as completing repairs, we reviewed later actions only to confirm whether or not it fulfilled those commitments.
8. The resident reported damage to personal possessions. The tenancy agreement encourages residents to take out contents insurance, and the repairs policy says that residents should use that insurance if damage to possessions occurs. The compensation policy states the landlord will not offer compensation when it has advised residents to use contents insurance. In its final complaint response, the landlord told the resident to claim through his insurer and, if his insurer believed the landlord was at fault, to pursue a claim with the landlord’s insurer. This advice was appropriate and consistent with its policies.
9. It is not clear if the resident has made an insurance claim. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide the resident with details of its liability insurer, if it has not done so already. The insurer will be able to assess the damage caused and reach a decision on whether it was a result of any negligence by the landlord. The liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy requires routine repairs to be completed within 20 working days. Procedures set out in its damp and mould self-assessment (the procedures) state that mould washes should be carried out where appropriate. The resident reported damp and mould in April 2023. The landlord scheduled a mould wash, but this did not take place. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this failure in its final complaint response.
11. In August 2024, the landlord raised a job for a damp and mould wash in the kitchen and bathroom. It noted that the bathroom mould was “severe.” It completed a mould wash within 20 days, in line with its repairs policy.
12. The landlord did not complete follow-up steps required by its procedures, such as post-inspection calls or visits. It should have carried out a follow-up visit after the mould wash in August 2024, especially as it described the mould as “severe.” Failure to complete aftercare led to the resident having to re-report problems.
13. The procedures require a surveyor to agree an action plan with the resident, including a schedule of works. The damp and mould policy states that if treatment cannot be completed quickly, interim measures such as mould washes should be offered. The resident reported damp and mould again on 2 June 2025 when making a stage 1 complaint. A surveyor inspected the property within 12 working days and provided a specification of works for several rooms including the bathroom, living room and bedroom. This included mould treatment, relaying insulation, renewing extractor fans, and installing a bathroom fan heater. The landlord offered a mould wash as an interim measure and completed the extractor fan and heater installations within 8 days.
14. While the landlord acted appropriately by arranging a survey, offering a mould wash, booking in recommended works and completing some work promptly, the landlord did not provide an action plan. In its final response, the landlord confirmed works were outstanding but did not give dates when it would complete this work. It said it would implement service enhancements for repair oversight, tracking, and follow on works by August 2025. However, remaining works remained outstanding on 10 October 2025, when the resident made a new complaint. The landlord did not evidence any service improvements and it exceeded timescales set out in the procedures, which describe a 3-month timeline for completing damp works.
15. The procedures say that the landlord will clearly communicate with residents, explaining what actions it will take, why, and when. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated expected timescales or plans to the resident, causing him likely uncertainty and distress.
16. The landlord’s repairs policy requires it to manage appointments proactively so residents do not need to chase updates. After some works were completed in June 2025, the contractor made no further contact with the resident, who followed up with the landlord on 12 July 2025. In its final response on 23 July 2025, the landlord told the resident to contact the contractor directly. This was inappropriate as the landlord should have maintained oversight of the planned works. It failed to manage repairs proactively and showed poor communication and planning with its contractors.
17. The procedures say that alternative accommodation should be considered based on the severity of the issue and any vulnerabilities reported by the resident. In June 2025, the resident reported impacts on his health including persistent coughing and breathing difficulties caused by mould growth. On 12 July 2025, he requested rehousing and said that he had been staying with a friend due to the property’s condition. We cannot determine liability for the impacts on health. These matters are more appropriate for an insurance claim or court. We also cannot order a landlord to move a resident to another property. However we can consider whether the landlord’s responses were reasonable. We can also consider any distress and inconvenience the resident might have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the way it responded to the concerns he raised about his health.
18. There is no evidence that the landlord satisfied itself or the resident that the property was habitable or that it considered the resident’s health in its decision making. When speaking with the resident about the final complaint response, the landlord said that contractors were responsible for reporting on the property’s condition. It said it would investigate further if its contractors raised concerns, including considering hotel accommodation. This advice was not appropriate considering the limited number of contractor visits that had taken place, and that none were yet scheduled.
19. The procedures note several other actions for the landlord. These include offering the resident advice on managing damp and mould while issues are being addressed, offering a dehumidifier and providing a dedicated phone line for damp and mould enquiries. It also stipulates a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. The damp and mould policy outlines further requirements, such as taking solution-oriented approaches and asking questions to determine causes. Specific actions listed here were not taken. Additionally, the extended period damp and mould was present with the absence of a clear repair timeline suggests that the landlord did not adopt a zero-tolerance approach.
20. The landlord told us that further damp and mould works were completed by 24 November 2025. It is not evident that all recommended work, such as the removal and relaying of loft insulation, took place. The resident told us that there was still damp and mould at the property.
21. The evidence shows that damp and mould have continued in the property since 2023. The landlord did not complete all of the recommended work. The resident also continued to report concerns about the extent of the damp and mould. Because of this, we have ordered the landlord to instruct a specialist damp and mould company to inspect the property. The landlord must complete any further recommended work.
22. The landlord’s offer of £100 in compensation did not reflect the serious impact of its failings. The resident lived with damp and mould in several areas of the property since April 2023. The landlord showed poor communication, lack of proactive action and failure to follow policies, including consideration of health conditions and alternative accommodation. These issues were compounded by the extended delay in completing the work even after the complaints process concluded. This left the resident with uncertainty and poor living conditions, causing significant distress, inconvenience and disruption.
23. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration and an order for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £900 in compensation, bringing the total to £1,000. This amount reflects the failings listed above, with particular emphasis on the extended duration the works remained outstanding for, and the fact that the issues affected several parts of the property. This sum also reflects the fact that, due to the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord’s failings would have had a more severe effect on him compared to other residents in the same position without his vulnerabilities.

24. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5-working days of receipt. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days.
25. The landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement and both complaint responses were sent within the agreed timeframes. The stage 1 acknowledgement was issued 1 day late. This delay was minor and did not have any significant impact on the outcome for the resident.
26. The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The stage 1 complaint specifically highlighted health and safety issues and questioned the property’s habitability. These points were not addressed in the complaint responses which would likely have caused frustration and inconvenience.
27. As such we have made a finding of service failure and an order for the landlord to pay £100 in compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guidance to recognise the impact of a failing in the service provided.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

29. The landlord should keep residents informed of planned works and expected timescales. This did not happen in this case, which led to uncertainty for the resident.

Other

30. Good damp and mould case management should be in line with policies and procedures. This includes a taking a proactive approach and ensuring works are progressing timeously. In this case, the resident had to chase up with both the contractors and the landlord. The landlord should have oversight of its contracted works and follow up on behalf of the resident when needed.