Southwark Council (202408002)

Background

1. The resident lives by himself. Both him and his carer communicated with the landlord. They are both referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report. He raised concerns in 2024 about damp and mould in his property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp, mould and associated repairs.
   2. Staff conduct.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs.
4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Staff conduct.
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not follow its repairs policy and did not fully respond to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and a missing bath panel.
6. The landlord reasonably investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
7. The landlord broadly acted in line with its complaints policy. There were minor shortcomings at each stage that did not affect the overall outcome.

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

8. The resident said they were unhappy with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould after January 2025. This wasn’t included in the original complaint the landlord looked at. The landlord needs a fair chance to investigate and respond to these new concerns. The resident should contact the landlord directly and, if needed, make a separate complaint. If they’re still unhappy after the landlord responds, they can then bring this new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Damp and mould

9. On 12 September 2024 the landlord raised a mould wash for the bathroom and kitchen, which was completed on the 18 September 2024. A second mould wash was raised in November 2024, which was cancelled due to lack of access. The landlord failed to record why these were raised. This has meant it is not possible to assess if its actions were reasonable and completed in an appropriate timescale from the point of the resident’s reports. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the resident reported damp and mould in March 2024.
10. The landlord completed a mould wash in the bathroom on 3 December 2024. It inspected the bathroom and confirmed there were no active leaks, but there was water “splashing over” from the shower. It removed the water damaged bath panel. These actions were reasonable and completed within the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe.
11. The landlord noted on 3 December 2024 that the roof flashing needed further inspection and the bath panel needed to be replaced. However, it recorded at the same time that it would not carry out further repairs (beyond mould treatments) because the property was under a disrepair claim. This was not a reasonable position as the landlord is obliged to maintain the property condition as per the tenancy agreement and submission of a disrepair claim should not prevent it doing so.
12. The resident reported they were concerned there was still damp and mould in the property and the root cause had not been dealt with. He said there were excessive moisture levels and mould was spreading across walls throughout the property. The landlord said the matter was resolved but did not explain its reasoning to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate why the resident said the damp and mould remained.
13. The landlord failed to follow its repairs policy by inspecting the damp within 20 working days and assessing the most appropriate course of action. It was inappropriate for it to limit its actions to beyond mould washing and a check of the bathroom pipework given the recommendations made to check lead flashing and the resident’s concerns about other rooms beyond the bathroom.
14. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s report on 18 December 2024 of the missing bath panel and dirt and debris.
15. The landlord did not acknowledge these failures in its stage 2 response. The resident said they were distressed by the damp and mould. They report the damp is still ongoing. We have found maladministration for failings which likely had an adverse impact on the resident. We have ordered compensation and for the reports of damp and mould to be properly inspected.

16. It isn’t the Ombudsman’s role to decide how a landlord should deal with any problems in how individual staff members behaved, for example disciplinary or employment matters.
17. When we investigate a complaint, we look at the landlord’s actions as an organisation. We only refer to what individuals did when it helps us understand how the landlord acted overall. If the actions of an individual staff member contribute to a service failure, any findings, orders, or recommendations are made against the landlord, not the individual.
18. The landlord attended on 25 November 2024. The resident asked the operative to wear plastic shoe covers. The operative declined because the plastic shoe covers could be a slip hazard. This was in line with training the operative had recently received and a need for staff to wear appropriate footwear when working.
19. The operative kept good records of this interaction and spoke promptly to their manager about the incident.
20. The landlord appropriately investigated and explained the outcome to the resident. It considered alternatives and arranged to use a sheet when entering and leaving the property going forward. This was a resolution-focused approach.

21. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Code. Our findings are that the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged the stage 1 complaint in line with its policy.
    2. Responded to the stage 1 complaint 1 day outside of its policy.
    3. Acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within its policy.
    4. Responded to the stage 2 complaint 1 day outside of its policy.
22. There were minor shortcomings by the landlord in the timing of its complaint responses, but these did not cause any adverse impact to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord kept good records in relation to the staff conduct complaint. The landlord did not record why it raised mould washes and should ensure that it logs details of resident reports at the time they are made.

Communication

24. The landlord did not explain to the resident why it considered the pre-action disrepair claim impacted the work it would do to his home.