Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Southwark Council (202309335)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309335

Southwark Council

30 September 2024


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:
    1. Reports of a leak into the property and subsequent damp and mould.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a 2-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a building owned by the landlord. She resides with her family. She became the leaseholder on 23 May 2022. Prior to this she was the secure tenant of the property which was owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the roof and issues with damp and mould to the landlord on 10 January 2022. It acknowledged this and requested photographs of the damp, which she provided on 8 February 2022. It inspected the property on 9 February 2022 and the roof on 25 February 2022 and both inspections raised an issue with condensation. It raised works to complete a mould treatment in her property by 9 March 2022.
  3. On 15 March 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord because it had not completed the mould treatment. It acknowledged her complaint on 17 March 2022 and provided its stage 1 response on 8 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to her. It stated that it had detected no leaks and the issue in her bathroom was condensation. It said it would contact her about outstanding works once it had a response from its contractors.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 8 August 2022, stating that the mould was in every room, not just the bathroom. She said that she had not received any reports about the roof and would like to be able to read the inspection report. It acknowledged her complaint on 9 December 2022.
  5. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 19 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in escalating her complaint due to a backlog of work. It said that it had completed the mould treatment on 6 April 2022. It said that the roofing contractor reported that the roof had minimal to no defects on 25 February 2022 and believed that condensation had caused damp in the property. It said that it had no records of the reported roof leak and that it had escalated this to its communal repairs team on 12 January 2023, with an appointment booked for 23 January 2023.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as the leak, damp and mould issues remained ongoing. As such, she brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the effect that the issues have had on her children’s health. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the issues and the resident’s health concerns. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to their health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

Policies, procedures, and the lease agreement

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on landlords to conduct repairs to the structure and exterior of their properties. The landlord reflects this in its repairs guide, and the lease agreement, in which it states that it is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and of the block, including roofs, drains and gutters.
  2. The lease agreement states that the tenant is to keep the property and every part thereof (except any part which the landlord is legally obliged to repair) and all walls, sewers, drains and pipes in good and tenantable repair and condition (including decorative repair).
  3. In its repairs guide, the landlord states that faults with a roof causing water penetration will be prioritised as non-urgent works and it will complete repairs within 20 working days. It will sometimes include these works in its major planned works and these cases, there may be a reasonable delay in works starting.
  4. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 3 working days and provide a first-stage response within 15 working days. It will provide a second-stage response within 25 working days. It states that it will consider financial compensation in situations where a resident cannot put a complainant back in the position they would have been without the mistake or delay of the landlord.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy details the amount it will consider paying a resident for delays, distress, time, and trouble. The amounts very based on the impact on the resident and the length of time an issue takes to resolve. These are up to a maximum of £20 per week or £1000 per year for distress and delay, and a maximum payment of £250 for time and trouble.

The leak, damp, and mould

  1. The resident reported the suspected roof leak to the landlord on 10 January 2022. In this report she advised that her property was damp, with black mould patches on the ceiling and wall. It raised works for this on the same day and requested that she send photos of the damp damage to help it decide the necessary repairs. This was a quick and reasonable response to the report.
  2. On 3 February 2022, the landlord raised works to inspect the resident’s property for damp and mould. On 8 February 2022, she told it that the damp and mould was only present on internal perimeter walls and asked it to inspect the roof for a leak as she felt this was the cause. It inspected the property on 9 February 2022 and found mould in several rooms, stating that this was caused by condensation and that there was no damp. It requested works to complete a mould treatment to these areas with a target date of 9 March 2022. On 10 February 2022, it requested an inspection of the roof with a target date of 10 March 2022. This was a fair response in the circumstances as it addressed the mould in the property and demonstrated a willingness to investigate her concerns about the roof.
  3. The landlord completed its inspection of the roof on 25 February 2022. It noted internally that it had sent the report and photographs from this, but this information has not been provided to the Ombudsman. It briefly noted the issue within her property as condensation. It completed its inspection of the roof in a timely manner but it is unclear whether it identified any leaks or related problems from the records it provided.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 15 March 2022 as it had not completed the mould treatment in her property. Following this, it chased works on 4 April 2022 and completed the treatment on 6 April 2022. This exceeded its target date of 9 March 2022, and it failed to keep her updated with reasons for the delays and when it would be completing works.
  5. The landlord called the resident on 29 April 2022. She confirmed that it had completed the mould treatment but stated that the issue remained ongoing. She described peeling paint in her property and said that it had told her it would be arranging an inspection of the roof and loft space with its roofing contractor. She then completed the purchase of the property and became the leaseholder on 23 May 2022. At this point, any future repairs inside the property as defined by the lease became the responsibility of the resident.
  6. During works to external pipework at the resident’s property on 6 August 2022, the landlord’s roofing contractor found heavy black mould on all internal perimeter walls of her property. They checked the loft space where possible and no insulation was in place. They noted that if pipework issues continued, they would need scaffolding to further inspect and complete any repairs. In response to this, the landlord raised works for further mould washes at the resident’s property. At this time, this was not the landlord’s responsibility, and it demonstrated good practice in requesting this.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 8 August 2022 focussed on a mould wash in the resident’s bathroom only. It was unable to provide any information on the works it completed in April 2022 as it had not received an update from its contractor. It stated that the issue with mould in her bathroom was condensation as it had found no leak in the loft space or roof. It provided her with an information booklet on damp, mould, and condensation. Its response was uninformative and could not address the initial delays in completing the mould treatment as it did not hold accurate records for this.
  8. After the resident requested escalation of her complaint, the landlord completed internal investigation into the ongoing issues. It raised works to investigate the damp and mould in her property and to remedy an ongoing roof leak on 12 January 2023. It booked appointments for 22 February 2022 to visit her property and 23 January 2023 to inspect the roof. This was a positive action but at this stage the issue had been ongoing for over a year with minimal intervention from the landlord to investigate why the damp was worsening.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord provided more information that could not include in its stage 1 response as it had updated records for completed works since then. It explained that it completed the mould treatment in April 2022 and that its contractor reported the mould in her property as a condensation issue in February 2022. However, it had since created a specialist damp and mould team and referred her case to the team for further review. It advised her that it had also booked an inspection of the roof. Its response was clear, and it explained how it would address her concerns going forward.
  10. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service demonstrating that its contractor inspected the roof on 28 September 2023, finding an issue with a blocked outlet and they recommended the corrugated roofing sheets and gutter be liquid coated to seal the coverings. The contractor completed works to the roof of the property on 7 October 2023. Once the contractor had identified the required works, it completed the repairs within the 20-working day timescale in the landlord’s repairs guide.
  11. However, there were delays in erecting the scaffolding due to confusion by the contractors, followed by access issues with the ground floor property in July 2023. The scaffolding was in place on 9 August 2023, but it has provided no evidence this Service explaining the delay between this being completed and the investigation taking place.
  12. In conclusion, there were avoidable delays in the landlord’s investigation of the roof leak. It was quick to determine that the cause of mould in the resident’s property was condensation without a full inspection of the roof. She first reported that there may have been a leak from the roof on 10 January 2022 and it did not thoroughly investigate this until September 2023, over 18 months later.
  13. While repairs inside the property are now the responsibility of the resident as the leaseholder, she may have avoided further damage to the property with earlier inspection and intervention from the landlord. It only began to thoroughly investigate after she had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process with the implementation of its specialist damp and mould team. As such, a finding of maladministration is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

Complaint handling

  1. There were substantial delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaints process, which it did not dispute and has apologised for in both of its complaint responses.
  2. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within its policy timescales on 17 March 2022, it did not provide its response until 8 August 2022, 97 working days later. It did apologise for the delay in its stage 1 response, but it did not acknowledge the severity of this or offer any further redress. In line with its compensation policy of £10 a week for the impact in this case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make an offer of financial redress for this to the amount of £130 and to explain how it would work to avoid future delays.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day the stage 1 response was received, 8 August 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge this request until 9 December 2022, 87 working days later. This was another excessive delay and not in line with its policy approach of acknowledging a complaint within 3 working days.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 19 January 2023, 26 working days after acknowledging the resident’s complaint escalation and 113 working days after her escalation request. It apologised again for the delays at stage 1 and offered a further apology for the delays at stage 2, citing a backlog of work as the reason for this. It offered no further redress. It would have also been reasonable for it to make an offer of compensation for the stage 2 delays. In line with its policy, £10 a week for the impact in this case would have been appropriate to the amount of an additional £160.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) during the time of this complaint. However, it has since published its self-assessment against the Code, along with an updated complaints policy and procedure which all demonstrate improved compliance. As such, no orders will be made in relation to its complaints policy.
  7. In conclusion, there were clear failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. While it apologised for this, it did not offer appropriate redress for the delays she experienced. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate in the circumstances and this Service will make an order for compensation recognising the delays and consequent impact to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1.  There was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and subsequent damp and mould.
    2. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £850, broken down as follows:
    1. £350 for the failures identified complaint handling.
    2. £500 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord considers completing a further inspection of the resident’s property for any remaining damp and mould and that it considers contributing towards, or reimbursement of, the costs of any required works to put right the damage caused by the roof leak. It may, on the other hand, assist the resident in making a claim to its insurers for the internal damage.