Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Southwark Council (202303910)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303910

Southwark Council

28 March 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. On going damp and mould in the property.
    2. Dangerous flooring in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in her flat with her husband and 3 children. She has a young son who has health issues, which includes a compromised immune system.
  2. The property has a history of leaks and reoccurring damp and mould. In the last 3 years, the landlord has undertaken damp works annually.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 12 April 2023. She said she has had ongoing problems with damp and mould since 2015, which it had still not resolved. She said it even affected her floors and kitchen cupboards where she stores food. She said she has always had concerns about the family’s health. However, this concern had increased as her newest son was under the care of Great Ormond Street Hospital and had had 2 lifesaving operations.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 May 2023. It acknowledged she had not received the repairs service she should have. It had confirmed with the resident that, following recent work, no damp and mould was present. A recent inspection under the floorboards had detected no leaks from any pipework under the floor. It agreed to send the resident a paint pack following the damp works and provided appointment dates for 3 outstanding repairs.
  5. On 31 May 2023 the landlord received the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated. She had sent it earlier (exact date unknown), but the web form had not been working. She said the damp problems had been ongoing for 8 years and were impacting her mental health. She said the family was constantly ill and mould was extremely unsafe for her son, who had a compromised immune system. She said it had painted over the mould and ordered a fan, but this did not explain what was causing it and why it always came back. She said the new Lino recently fitted was already lifting and causing a trip hazard. She felt other areas of the floor were unsafe. They had broken floorboards, nails and splinters protruding.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2023. It said the cause of damp and mould can be multiple contributing factors. It listed the details of attendances for multiple works since July 2022. These included inspections, providing dehumidifiers, plastering, and mould washes. As part of the investigation, it arranged a technical inspection to identify all outstanding repairs. An appointment was arranged for 1 August 2023 to complete works identified, including to the bathroom, floorboards, and flooring. It also offered her £265 compensation, broken down:
    1.  £50 for the delay in inspecting under the floorboards.
    2.  £100 for the time and inconvenience of reporting the damp and mould.
    3. £15 for the delay in supplying a paint pack.
    4.  £50 for the time and trouble of raising further repairs because work was not up to standard.
    5.  £50 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
  7. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service. She did not think it had resolved the damp and mould and she wanted it to move her to another property. She did not think the level of compensation was appropriate for living with the problem for 8 years.
  8. The resident has reported that the damp and mould have returned to her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint to this Service was about a leak from her kitchen sink. We may not consider complaints that have not been through the landlord’s full complaints procedure. The leak was not part of her original complaint, which means the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond. As such, this aspect of her complaint will not be included in this investigation. The resident may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord about this issue. She may then refer to this Service if she is dissatisfied with its response.
  2. The resident has complained that she has lived with the damp and mould for 8 years. We may not consider matters that were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident raised her formal complaint to the landlord in April 2023, our investigation will focus on relevant matters within the 12 months prior to that date.
  3. The resident has said, in her complaint to this Service, that living with damp and mould for 8 years has had an effect on her mental health. She also has concerns about the effect it has had on the health of her son, who has a compromised immune system. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the effects of the damp and mould on the family’s health is better dealt with via the court. However, the Ombudsman will consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident.
  4. In her complaint, the resident had reported mice in her property. The landlord is a local council; it refers infestation issues to its environmental services pest control department and did not investigate this issue in its complaint responses. We cannot consider complaints regarding local housing authorities in England on matters which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. As such, this aspect of the resident’s complaint will not be included in this investigation. The resident may make a complaint about this issue to her local council’s pest control team if she has not already done so. If she is dissatisfied with its response, she may then refer her complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. Landlords must ensure that properties they rent out are fit for human habitation. The main source of this duty is section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which was inserted by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. A property might be unfit if it has damp and mould or other health and safety hazards.
  2. On 13 January 2022 the landlord raised a job to install a flat master vent system to the flat. This was part of the resolution to earlier reports of damp and mould (June 2021) which had been diagnosed as a condensation problem. This was an appropriate solution for a property with condensation as it improves air flow and reduces moisture.
  3. The landlord’s notes indicated problems contacting the resident to arrange an appointment for the works. Its contractor carded the property on 23 February 2022, but the resident did not contact the contractor until 15 March 2022. The difficulty in contacting her delayed progression, but as it was evident it had made attempts, the delay was outside of its control.
  4. The resident did not agree to an appointment on 15 March 2022. She told the contractor she had concerns about the vent system and its location. They contacted her again on 25 April 2022. They explained to her the unit would supply the property with fresh filtered air. She was still reluctant to agree, so it cancelled the job. She told this Service she refused the ventilation system because it was being located above her front door. People regularly smoked drugs in the corridor outside her flat. Having been advised it drew in air from outside she was not prepared to risk drug fumes being drawn into the flat.
  5. The resident’s concerns were understandable. It was not clear, however, if she had discussed them directly with the landlord. As the vent system was significant to the solution, it seems appropriate for it to have queried her refusal. Further discussion about the filtration system might have addressed her concerns or agreed a better location. Either might have enabled the installation to progress and reduce the likelihood of the damp and mould returning.
  6. On 10 March 2022 contractors attended to treat mould in the kitchen. Notes stated they needed to return to carry out extra work. On 19 March 2022 the resident requested that this work be delayed until pest control treatment had been completed. The landlord agreed to postpone, and she was to contact it when this was done, which was reasonable.
  7. The landlord raised a recall for the plasterwork for this job on 5 July 2022. It included instructions to mould wash inside the kitchen units and paint them with anti-mould paint. The resident asked to reschedule the initial appointment the day before (exact date unknown). It tried to contact her on 28 July 2022 and 8 August 2022 without success. An appointment was eventually booked for 22 August 2022, but it notes she was not in to give access. It contacted her again on 10 October 2022 and an appointment was agreed for the work to be completed on 1 November 2022. The difficulty in contacting the resident delayed the works, which was unfortunate. However, she works full time in business hours, which made contact difficult. However, this was outside the landlord’s control.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 18 July 2023 still apologised for the time to complete the works. However, it noted that it attempted to make appointments with the resident sooner, which was a reasonable conclusion.
  9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that, on receipt of a report, it will always visit the property. It says it will ensure it looks at ventilation points, windows, doors, and the walls/build of the home. It may provide a dehumidifier or install additional ventilation (fan or extractor system). It implements a 3-stage mould treatment. The first cleans and kills all visible signs of mould. Stage 2 forms a barrier to prevent mould re-infecting the surface and the third stage is an anti-fungal decorative finish.
  10. On receiving a new report, the landlord visited the property to complete a damp and mould inspection on 10 March 2023. This aligned with its policy commitment to visit on receipt of a report. It found damp and mould in 3 rooms. It identified the works to resolve. It said it needed to re-mastic a window and supply 2 dehumidifiers. It also needed to lift damp floorboards to investigate a suspected leak.
  11. When the resident made her formal complaint on 12 April 2023, she highlighted that the damp and mould had been reoccurring since 2015. She stressed her concerns about the family’s health. Particularly her second son, who she described as vulnerable, under the care of the children’s hospital and already having had to have 2 lifesaving operations.
  12. The government has produced guidance on the health impacts of damp and mould. It states damp and mould pose a risk to anyone’s health and should always be acted on quickly. However, it is particularly important that damp and mould are addressed with urgency for those more vulnerable to significant health impacts. These include but are not limited to:
    1. People who have a weakened immune system.
    2. People living with a mental health condition.
    3. Children and young people whose organs are still developing.
    4. People who fall into more than one of these categories are likely to be particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of damp and mould.
  13. As well as these guidelines, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends a risk-based approach. Once on notice of the son’s health conditions, the landlord should have obtained more detail and assessed the risk. It was not evident that it did. However, this could be because it had already scheduled works to address the issues and not deemed it necessary.
  14. The landlord had scheduled the works for the 25 and 26 of April 2023. This was 32 working days from the inspection. This exceeded its 20-working day non-urgent repair policy response time. It did not explain the delay.
  15. The landlord’s works consisted of its 3-stage mould treatment to the living room and bathroom. It also addressed some damaged plaster in the living room. The order to re-mastic the window had to be postponed because of other works in progress. It also agreed to send her a paint pack to redecorate. The actions carried out aligned with what it says it will do in its damp and mould policy.
  16.  On 3 May 2023 the landlord attended to trace the leak under the floorboards. It did not lift the floorboards to check underneath. It recalled the contractor who attended on 6 May 2023. Contractors checked all pipework, including the heating circuit, and used a thermal imaging camera, but found no leak.
  17.  The landlord did not acknowledge the failed appointment to trace the leak in its first complaint response. It did, however, apologise for this at stage 2. It offered the resident £50 compensation as if felt it could have resolved this sooner, which was reasonable.
  18.  In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 10 May 2023, it apologised that the service the resident had received had not met its usual standards. It had confirmed with her that there was no longer any visible damp or mould in the property. It scheduled fitting a fan into the kitchen window on 11 May 2023, as well as repairs to a tap and the wooden flooring on 17 May 2023. It gave the investigator as a point of contact should the damp return, which was reasonable.
  19. The resident could not make the appointment on Saturday 11 May 2023. The landlord rescheduled and completed the work on 16 June 2023. This was reasonable. There was a delay because of her availability, but this was outside of the landlord’s control. It still completed the work within a reasonable time.
  20. In the resident’s escalation request on 31 May 2023 she reiterated her concerns about the health impacts of the damp and mould. She advised that her son had a weakened immune system. She said living with the problem for 8 years had impacted her mental health. She was not satisfied the works had resolved the problem, as it always came back. She wanted to know what was causing it. At the time she raised this, the landlord had just completed works and there was no damp and mould was present. As such, there was no expectation for the landlord to take any further action on receipt of this information. There would be an expectation for it to note these vulnerabilities for any reoccurrence or future repair issues. We requested information on known vulnerabilities. It provided no information in response, which indicates its records had not been updated.
  21. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 18 July 2023 explained that damp and mould can result from combined factors. It said it may need multiple solutions and a process of elimination before it can fully resolve the issue. This is correct and common in cases of damp and mould. It said although it was a challenging matter to solve, works had been ongoing to come to a resolution. If a landlord is pro-actively investigating and acts on new reports, we would consider its response as reasonable. It acknowledged that the resident had reported the issues several times and awarded her £100 for her time and trouble. This was a reasonable offer as it had not identified any service failure but recognised the inconvenience to her. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where the landlord’s actions had no permanent impact on the resident.
  22. To aid its stage 2 investigation, the landlord arranged a further technical inspection, which was appropriate. There was some dispute over attendance and access for this appointment. The resident complained it did not attend when she had taken a day off work. The landlord said it did, but the time it said it attended was prior to the appointment time. It appropriately apologised for this.
  23. The inspection identified the need for a new bath and new Polysafe flooring in the bathroom. The bathroom was a problem area for damp and mould. These works may have been a further resolution to the damp and mould. Unfortunately, its response did not make clear whether that was the case or that it had found extra repairs, which was unhelpful.
  24. The landlord’s response also acknowledged other minor service failings, for which it apologised. This included that some of its work had not been up to standard. It offered the resident £50 compensation for her time and trouble having to raise the repairs again. This amount was reasonable as it is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a minor failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the residen.t. Its supplier had run out of paint packs, which delayed her delivery by 3 weeks. It offered her £5 per week compensation for each week’s delay. This was reasonable, as it was not a landlord service failing that caused the delay. It also acknowledged its stage 2 response had not met its policy timescale. It offered her £50 compensation for this delay, which was proportionate to the time and trouble likely incurred by the resident as a result of the minor delay.
  25. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord offered to her. This was because she felt it should compensate her for damp and mould reoccurring in her property over the last 8 years. This Service only requires landlords to accept complaints referred to them within 12 months of the issue occurring. As such, it is only required to consider matters and offer redress for any failings within that time period.
  26. An outcome the resident was seeking was for the landlord to move her to a different property. We would not propose a remedy that might adversely affect other individuals, or mean that the resident had received preferential treatment compared to others in the same situation. Local authorities agree transfer requests on assessed housing need and approved waiting lists. We would not propose a transfer as a remedy that would undermine this approach. As this could be unfair to other applicants waiting for housing with a similar or a higher priority.
  27. During the timeframe of the resident’s complaint the landlord adhered to its policies in its handling of the damp and mould. It reacted to all reports, inspecting and identifying appropriate works. There were some delays, but records show this was often down to difficulty making contact with the resident or her availability. It acknowledged any service failings, for which it apologised and identified actions to put things right. It offered reasonable and proportionate compensation for service failures that had an adverse impact on the resident. This has led us to a finding of reasonable redress in its handling of the damp and mould.
  28.  It is noted from a recent update from the resident that the damp and mould returned 6 months ago and we have made recommendations below concerning this.

Flooring in the property

  1. In the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 31 May 2023, she had a list of inadequate and outstanding repairs. These included new vinyl flooring that was lifting and unsafe floorboards, broken with nails and splinters protruding. As stated earlier, the landlord should ensure its rented properties are free from hazards that may deem them unfit for habitation.
  2. The landlord made an appointment for a technical inspection for 23 June 2023. This was within its 20-working day policy response time for non-urgent repairs. Unfortunately, the resident could not attend this appointment. She re-arranged for 26 June 2023. There was a dispute over access on this day, so it rescheduled the appointment for 6 July 2023.
  3.  The inspection identified necessary remedial works. These included renewing a section of damaged floorboards and re-securing some loose ones in the hallway and lounge. It offered the resident 4 appointments between 20 and 31 July 2023. These dates were not convenient for her. The earliest date she could make was 1 August 2023. Although the resident’s availability was outside of its control, the repair was completed within its repairs policy timescale.
  4. The landlord, however, was silent on the faulty vinyl it fitted in the resident’s kitchen. Lifting vinyl could present a trip hazard. It should have inspected the fault, and or recalled the fitter. In her recent update she has advised this Service, that to date, no one has attended to address the issue. This is not appropriate and is considered a service failing by the landlord.
  5. The landlord acted in accordance with its repairs policy in relation to the resident’s reports of damaged floorboards. Its failure to respond to her reports of faulty vinyl has led to a finding of Service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dangerous flooring.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with the following orders:
    1. Provides a written apology for its failure to respond to the resident’s reports about the faulty vinyl.
    2. Pays the resident the sum of £100 for the distress and inconvenience she likely experienced as a result of the landlord’s response to her reports of dangerous flooring in the property.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. visits the resident to:
      1. Re-inspect the damp and mould.
      2. Re-offer a positive input ventilation system and discuss the resident’s concerns.
      3. Consider any other options it could provide to alleviate the build-up of condensation (e.g. thermal insulation boarding to external walls).
  2. Update its records with the household vulnerabilities.
  3. Pays the resident the £265 previously offered if it has not already done so.