London Borough of Lewisham (202525114)

Background

1. The resident complained that her windows and balcony door were in poor condition and the landlord had not renewed them, despite saying it would. She said they were unsafe and contributing to damp and mould in the home. She lives with her 2 children and expressed concerns about the effect on their health and wellbeing. The landlord was aware her daughter has asthma and was referred to hospital with breathing problems during the complaint period.

What the complaint is about

2. How the landlord handled the resident’s:
   1. Reports about the condition of her windows and balcony door, and associated damp and mould.
   2. Formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Severe maladministration in how landlord handled the resident’s reports about the condition of her windows and balcony door, and associated damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not take timely or effective steps to address the resident’s reports about faulty windows and damp and mould in the home. It did not carry out an inspection when she raised safety risks, did not consider the family’s vulnerabilities, and did not complete temporary repairs or progress the window renewal. Its handling of the damp and mould was reactive and incomplete. These failures caused prolonged distress and had a significant impact on the household.
5. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. This caused her inconvenience, and time and trouble pursuing a response. Although the landlord apologised for the delay, it did not do enough to put things right. It did not explain the reasons for its delay, acknowledge its poor communication, or offer compensation.

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.

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.

What we have not investigated

6. The resident expressed concern about the impact of the housing conditions on her children’s health and wellbeing. In particular, she said her daughter’s respiratory condition was impacted by the damp and mould. We cannot draw a causal link between the landlord’s actions and the family’s health conditions. However, we can consider whether the landlord responded appropriately considering the known risks. If the resident believes the landlord’s actions have affected her family’s health, she can pursue a personal injury claim against the landlord separately.

What we have investigated

7. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the building in good repair. This includes the windowsills, frames and doors. The landlord accepted it was responsible for window repairs and renewal.
8. The resident said she had made “multiple” complaints about the condition of her windows. She said the landlord told her each year that it would replace them as part of its upcoming ‘major works program’. We have no records of this but do not dispute her account.
9. In its complaint response, the landlord accepted this ‘may’ have been the case and suggested possible reasons why it had not replaced the windows. This was a not a reasonable response. The landlord should have investigated the resident’s claim and provided a clear position on its previous handling of the matter. It should have apologised if it had changed its position and for failing to communicate this.
10. The landlord explained a third-party would contact her to arrange a stock condition survey, which would include an assessment of the windows. However, it did not give an estimated timescale. It told the resident she could contact the repairs team in the meantime.
11. While the landlord signposted the resident to the correct team, it should have taken a proactive approach. Its repairs policy states it will manage repairs proactively so that residents do not have to chase it. It also says it will respond to ‘urgent’ repairs, defined as those ‘where there is a possible health, safety, or security risk’ within 3 working days. The resident had reported concerns about the safety of the windows and the impact on her child’s health, which met the criteria for an urgent repair. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to raise an internal inspection itself, and to treat the matter with urgency in line with its policy.
12. The surveyor completed the stock condition survey 4 months later, in November 2024. There is no evidence the resident raised a repair request during this period, or that the landlord attended to assess the windows. However, the resident escalated her complaint during this time, which shows she continued to raise concerns.
13. We asked the landlord for a copy of the resident’s escalation of November 2024, but it did not provide it. Nor did it provide a copy of the stock condition survey. This has limited our ability to understand the known risks and to assess what action the landlord should have taken. We have highlighted this below as part of the landlord’s overall learning.
14. On 21 January 2025 the resident reported damp and mould in the home. She said this was caused by several issues, including the faulty windows and balcony door. She said water was seeping under the balcony door, causing significant mould growth on the balcony step. She also reported severe black mould on the window frames and said it was difficult to keep the home warm and dry. She sent the landlord photographs which show mould on the walls and window frames.
15. The landlord’s damp, mould, and leaks policy says it will ask key questions to determine its course of action when a resident reports these issues. The landlord asked the resident for information about the family composition and locations affected by mould which was appropriate. The resident reported mould in several locations and said she had young children in the home. She also said her daughter’s breathing difficulties had worsened.
16. The policy also says the landlord will complete a visual inspection where the next steps are unclear. In its correspondence with us, the landlord said it did not consider a survey necessary because it acted on the photographs the resident provided. While a visual inspection is not required in every case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so here, or to have reviewed the findings of the stock condition survey. There is no evidence it did either. A survey or review would have given the landlord a full understanding of the issues in the property and would have supported a more considered response.
17. The landlord did however take some reasonable steps. It arranged a mould wash which its contractor completed on 2 February 2025. Repair records also show that it completed work to stop water ingress at the balcony door on 13 February 2025.
18. According to the resident, the contractor could not remove the mould from the frames because the glass was loose. The photographs also show that mould remained on the balcony step. As the landlord had not resolved the water ingress at the time of the mould wash it would have been reasonable for it to return once it had completed the repair. Instead, it only followed up with the contractor after the resident’s second escalation in April 2025. It then identified that further mould treatment was required.
19. In its complaint response the landlord said it was liaising with the contractor to arrange further treatment but there is no evidence this happened. This was a missed opportunity to alleviate conditions for the resident and demonstrated an ongoing lack of oversight.
20. While the mould wash was a reasonable step to address the symptoms, the landlord did not show that it took sufficient action to address the underlying cause of the damp and mould. Without temporary repairs or replacement windows it was reasonable to expect the damp and mould to continue, as the resident reported. The landlord’s response did not align with its damp, mould, and leaks policy, which says it will take a solution-focused, holistic approach.
21. The resident told the landlord several times that she was concerned about the impact of the conditions on her daughter’s health. The landlord’s damp, mould, and repairs policy says it will put residents at the centre of any resolution, considering specific circumstances and additional risks. The landlord did not show that it had sufficiently considered the family’s vulnerabilities. It took no action following the resident’s escalation, despite concerns she had raised about her daughter’s worsening health. The landlord also told us it held no recorded vulnerabilities for the family which demonstrates poor record keeping.
22. The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s ongoing concerns about the safety of the glass panes. In her escalation the resident said the glass had separated from the frames, leaving a gap, and she feared the panes could smash. This presented a potential hazard. The landlord should have acted urgently to risk assess the situation, consider mitigations, or expedite the window renewal. It did none of these. Instead, it said it would replace the windows as part of future planned works. Given the potential safety risks and the lack of a clear timescale for the planned works, it was not reasonable for the landlord to defer temporary repairs.
23. Overall, the landlord did not show sufficient urgency or take ownership of the issues the resident raised. It did not take prompt, full, or effective action in response to reported safety concerns and the damp and mould. These failures had a significant and prolonged impact on the resident and her children, and this impact was heightened by her daughter’s health condition. Taking all the circumstances into account, we have found this amounts to severe maladministration.

    The landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance say compensation is appropriate where a landlord’s failings have had an adverse impact on the resident. At the time of this determination, it has been 18 months since the resident’s complaint. The landlord has not replaced the windows or carried out temporary repairs during this time. We consider a payment of £1,350 to be appropriate, based on the length of time the resident has experienced poor living conditions because of the landlord’s lack of effective action. This amounts to £75 per month and reflects the additional distress caused by the family’s vulnerability.

24. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It also aims to issues a formal stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
25. The landlord met these timescales at stage 1. However, it did not progress the resident’s complaint appropriately at stage 2.
26. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 10 December 2025, 10 working days later. This was 5 days outside of its policy timescale. The landlord apologised for the delay and explained this was due to a backlog, which was reasonable.
27. The stage 2 response was due on 10 January 2025. The landlord did not issue a response by this date or inform the resident that it would be delayed. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about her complaint over the following 4 months. As a result, the resident escalated her complaint again on 23 April 2024. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response 12 working days later, on 12 May 2025. Overall, it took 103 working days for the landlord to respond following its acknowledgement.
28. This was a significant delay. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s protracted complaints process, during which time her housing issues remained unresolved. The landlord apologised for the delay, but it did not provide an explanation or identify any learning. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident for the inconvenience caused by the delay and its poor communication.
29. For these reasons we have found maladministration. The landlord should pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

30. We have recently published a special investigation report into the landlord which highlighted failures like those identified in this report. The landlord committed to making improvements, and this is positive. However, this report highlights the need to ensure it embeds improvements quickly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord did not provide us with key information and had not recorded known information about the family’s vulnerabilities. Effective knowledge and information management is an essential part of providing an efficient and reliable service. Our special investigation highlighted issues in this area and the findings of this report reinforce the need for systemic improvements.

Communication

32. The investigation highlighted shortcomings in the landlord’s communication. It did not keep her updated about the status of her window renewal or delays in its complaint handling.