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

Southwark Council (202414244)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414244

Southwark Council

14 May 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:
    1. Reports of a roof leak and subsequent damp and mould.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom top floor flat where she resides with her daughter. The landlord, a local council, owns the building.
  2. The resident’s daughter raised the complaint on her behalf. For the purpose of this report, we will refer to the resident and her daughter as “the resident”.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 December 2023, stating that there was a leak from the flat roof which had been ongoing for 7 years. She also reported that her home had suffered from damp and mould for 25 years. She was concerned that water was running into electrical fittings and added that there were slugs and mushrooms in her home. She described how the situation was affecting her health and asked it to bring the property to a habitable standard. She asked for compensation for the loss of her belongings and distress.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 18 December 2023. It set out the actions it had taken and apologised for the delay in completing repairs. It offered £100 compensation comprising £50 for the delay and £50 for inconvenience. It explained that she should make a claim for any damaged belongings via her own insurance, or she could make a claim to its insurance team and it would investigate separately.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 March 2024. She said that it advised her on 2 February 2024 that it had resolved the cause of the leak and would be in touch to arrange the repairs. She had heard nothing since, and the leak continued to affect her home and health. She had received no contact about the damp and mould which was making breathing “an uncomfortable experience” particularly when sleeping in a damp room.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request in November 2024 and sent its stage 2 complaint response on 17 December 2024. It apologised for the time taken to rectify the roof leak and that it had failed to escalate the complaint sooner. It said that the leak had been challenging to diagnose. It set out the actions it had taken and provided a detailed list of repairs from December 2022 to December 2024. It apologised for its service failings and offered £2,200 compensation comprising £1,000 for the delay, £1,000 for distress and inconvenience, and £200 for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She told us that she continues to experience the leak when it rains. She wants it to complete repairs and compensate her for the loss of her belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence she said that the ongoing leaks, damp and mould, was affecting her and her family’s health. She said they had breathing issues, difficulty sleeping, and psychological distress. It was affecting her arthritis, causing high blood pressure, and she had severe back pain in the winter months.
  2. 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 illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the resident’s concerns that the landlord’s inaction affected her health is better dealt with via the court.
  3. The resident stated that the leak had been ongoing for 7 years and the damp and mould for 25 years. While we do not dispute the resident’s assertion, we are unable to consider this timeframe. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 1 year prior to the resident’s complaint, up to the landlord’s final response on 17 December 2024.

 Reports of a roof leak and subsequent damp and mould

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order.
  2. The landlord did not provide a copy of a damp and mould policy or procedure. However, its ‘focus on damp and mould’ information booklet says it will always be thorough in its investigations and complete a full survey of the home before deciding what to do next. Its website states that it will inspect the home to find the cause, fit different types of fans, repair part of the block or property, wash away the mould, and supply a hygrometer to measure the moisture level. It also provides a paint pack and equipment to redecorate and will call 4 weeks later to check everything is in order. Its repairs guide says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s records of 8 September 2023 referred to a mould assessment being undertaken in the property. It found damp due to water ingress from the roof affecting the bedroom and hallway ceilings. It noted mould growth to the external walls within the bedrooms. It appropriately raised orders to complete a mould wash, locate and rectify the leak on the flat roof, and replaster and paint the bedroom and landing ceilings. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it completed these works at the time.
  4. In the resident’s complaint, 3 months later, she said that the leak continued and expressed her concerns about water entering electrical fittings. She said there was damp and mould on all walls throughout the property and the landlord had failed to provide appropriate responses. She said that “dirty liquid” was leaking into the flat, there were rotting floorboards and carpets, mushrooms growing, and damaged furniture and belongings. She said that while she had tried to manage the dampness, this was affecting her health. She described the landlord’s responsibilities under various legislation to keep the property in good order, free from damp, and hazards.
  5. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
  6. It is not disputed that there were delays in completing repairs. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that it raised an order on 14 November 2023 to inspect the roof for possible leaks. It found no evidence of a roof leak and asked its plumber to check pipework inside the water tank housing. It said that it was waiting for its scheduler to book in the work.
  8. While the landlord carried out an inspection of the roof, there was no evidence to suggest that it inspected the resident’s home to assess the damp and mould. Given it found no leak from the roof, its delay in raising further inspections was not reasonable and would have left the resident continuing to experience the water ingress, damp and mould. There was also no evidence that any repairs were raised to check the electrics given the resident had reported water ingress to electrical fittings. This was not in line with its obligations to check the property for hazards.
  9. The landlord’s response did not demonstrate that it checked its repairs records. Had it done so it would have noted its earlier inspection from September 2023 and been able to respond to the resident’s assertion that the leak had been ongoing for 7 years. That said, it apologised and acknowledged the delay and said it would monitor the work. It said that once complete, it would contact the resident to ensure she was happy with the work. It also appropriately offered £100 compensation for the delay and inconvenience which was in line with our remedies guidance of between £50 and £100. Its advice about making a claim for damaged belongings was reasonable as it would have required evidence of the lost items to enable it to consider a claim.
  10. The landlord’s records of 18 December 2023 queried why the repairs had not been booked. It also referred to having the incorrect information on file and updating its records to reflect the correct address. This demonstrates a record keeping failure which may have further contributed to the delays.
  11. In the resident’s escalation request in March 2024, she said she had heard nothing since 2 February 2024 when it told her that it had resolved the leak. She said that no one had been in touch about the repairs and the leak was ongoing. The landlord contacted her on3 April 2024 asking if the leak was still occurring. This was not appropriate as it should have been aware from the resident’s escalation request that she was still experiencing the leak.
  12. The resident responded on 8 April 2024 stating that the leak was spreading, and the property was unsafe. She said that an electrical engineer had attended on 5 April 2024 to measure her windows to install a fan. She was unhappy with the engineer’s conduct as he stood on her kitchen counter with dirty shoes and made a telephone call where he stated that it would be more cost effective to install a smaller fan. When she asked if this would be as effective, he laughed. She asked why it had decided to install a fan and again asked to escalate her complaint. She repeated her concerns the following day and asked what the fan was for and why she had not been informed about its installation. She said she was not comfortable consenting to the work as it did not address the leak. There was no evidence to show that the landlord provided a response.
  13. On 4 June 2024 the landlord’s records show that it had carried out a dye test on the roof. It also checked the tanks and found no issues. It asked for a plumber to check inside the flat to find the root cause. This was 5 months after the resident raised her complaint and suggests that up to this point it had not inspected the resident’s home.
  14. The landlord’s records of 6 June 2024 said that a plumber had already attended, and the leak was evident at high level, the only thing above the flat was the roof. It said it would ask the plumber to re-attend and do a more extensive investigation. It also stated that roofers had been out several times and completed a dye test but there was no sign of anything coming through. It said it would carry out a technical referral as the roofers had not identified any issues and there was no issue with the tanks. It raised an order on 28 June 2024 for a roof leak affecting the large bedroom and hallway.
  15. The landlord’s records of 30 October 2024 mentions speaking with the resident. It referred to her complaint from December 2023 and that there had been no final communication or outcome. It referred to a leak from the roof/tank room or a possible leak from the doors to the tank room which were not sealing properly and letting rainwater in. The resident said that the leak had been revisited but that it persisted and there was ongoing damage to both bedrooms and the landing. It said that it raised a further investigation for an external leak and also recalled the plumbing job to check the tank room pipes. It would also fit an extractor fan the following week which was identified after its damp and mould inspection the previous year. The evidence shows that it raised an order to reattend on 12 November 2024, 13 days later. This demonstrates that it was not proactive in completing work identified a year earlier, or that it considered the condition of the resident’s home or her health concerns while trying to resolve the matter.
  16. On 26 November 2024 the landlord’s records refer to its contractor needing to attend to fix the condense pipe. The pipe was attached to the communal tank and had separated, flooding the roof. It noted this as urgent as water was entering the resident’s home. Its records of 5 December 2024 referred to the need to carry out a dye test after the work was complete. Its records of the same date referred to its engineer’s report which found no leaks on the tank or valves. It raised an order for a further dye test and said that if no dye came through it would raise an order for the plastering work.
  17. The landlord raised orders for the above on 16 December 2024. Its records of the same day referred again to needing a dye test and ensuring the resident was home when it was done. It also referred to whether there had been a condensation assessment in the flat. This again shows a failure in the landlord’s record keeping as it should have been aware from its own records of what works had been completed.
  18. The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately apologised for the delays in completing repairs to rectify the leak. It said it had been responsive in trying to resolve the matter but due to the time it had taken, and the number of jobs required, it upheld the complaint and understood there were learnings for it to take on as a result. However, it failed to specify what learning it would take on.
  19. The landlord set out a detailed list of 24 repairs from 2 December 2022 to 16 December 2024, the majority of which referred to roof leaks. It said it had been challenging to diagnose the leak and it had to reattend on a number of occasions. This confirmed that the leak persisted despite the work done by its roofers and plumbers. It apologised for the distress and empathised that it would not have been easy to deal with given the time it had taken to resolve. Its engineer’s report from December 2024 confirmed no further leaks. It said it had arranged for dehumidifiers to be delivered and its technical officer had been in touch to arrange replastering work.
  20. The landlord also apologised for the resident’s experience with its electrical contractor. It said it only installed 1 type of fan so irrespective of the operative making a suggestion this would not have affected the type of fan it would install. It understood that measurements had been taken but that access was not granted at the time. It noted that the fan was installed on 26 November 2024. It apologised for its failings and offered £2,000 compensation for the delay, distress and inconvenience.
  21. The landlord’s apology was appropriate, and it demonstrated that it had considered the detriment caused to the resident in its compensation offer. Its offer was in line with our remedies guidance which says that sums of over £1,000 are appropriate when there has been a significant impact on a resident.
  22. Following the landlord’s final response, its records of 29 January 2025 show that it contacted the resident to check if the leak had stopped. It also asked if dehumidifiers were still needed so it could supply them. This suggests that it did not follow up after its stage 2 response when it said it would provide them. It also asked if she could be available for the plasterer to complete the work and provided dates for February.
  23. The resident responded the same day and said that the leak was still happening. She told us in May 2025 that she continues to experience leaks when it rains and that the damp and mould continues. There was no further evidence provided to suggest that any further action was taken to address the leak, damp or mould.
  24. In summary, the landlord’s actions demonstrated efforts to put things right for the resident. It apologised for its failings, offered compensation, and completed some repair works. However, while it said that there were learnings to be taken on board it failed to identify these or say how it would prevent similar failings in the future. It failed to provide a permanent remedy to the leak, damp and mould in the resident’s home. It also failed to demonstrate that it gave due regard to the resident’s health concerns or check the property for hazards.
  25. Our outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. This is particularly the case where the landlord has not demonstrated specific learning points to ensure that similar failings do not occur in the future. We have, therefore, made a finding of maladministration. The required resolution is not more financial compensation but to resolve the leak, damp and mould. We have, therefore, made an order for the landlord to take appropriate action to resolve this.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At the time of the complaint its policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 15 and 25 working days respectively. Its current policy dated April 2024 is in line with our Complaint Handling Code which says that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 and 20 working days.
  2. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process in line with its policy.
  3. However, it is not disputed that there was a delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s escalation request. Its records show that she asked to escalate her complaint on 14 March and 8 April 2024. It failed to acknowledge this or provide a response. It acknowledged her escalation request on 14 November 2024 and said it would respond by 12 December 2024. It provided its final response on 17 December 2024 and appropriately apologised for not escalating the complaint sooner. Its offer of £200 compensation was also appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and subsequent damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactory resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following actions within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £2,100 offered in its stage 1 and 2 responses (if not already paid).
    2. Send a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must appoint an independent external surveyor or equivalent to complete an assessment of the roof and the damp and mould in the resident’s home. It must provide a copy of its report and findings to the resident and us. It must provide a timescale for any identified repairs to be undertaken.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays to the resident the sum of £200 offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling failures.