Southwark Council (202415470)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202415470 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Southwark Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
30 October 2025 |
Background
- The resident is a leaseholder and signed the lease in 2010. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The property is a 1-bedroom upper ground floor flat. The leasehold states the landlord is responsible of keeping the structure and exterior of the building in repair.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is the landlord’s handling of:
- an external leak in the resident’s home
- the subsequent damp and mould
- the associated complaint
Our decision (determination)
- We found that:
- there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of an external leak in the resident’s home
- there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the subsequent damp and mould
- there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s handling of an external leak in the resident’s home
- The landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns. The landlord did undertake inspections. It acknowledged its delays and apologised with an offer of compensation.
The landlord’s handling of the subsequent damp and mould
- The landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns. The landlord conducted a Condensation Assessment Report. The landlord told the resident of the findings in its complaint response. It apologised for the delay and offered compensation.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
- The landlord’s complaint handling was delayed and was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. But the landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 2 complaint response, apologised and offered 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.
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should consider providing training to its complaint handling staff. It should ensure that all staff understand the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. |
|
The landlord should consider proactively making contact with the resident to assure itself there are no ongoing issues. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
16 January 2024 |
The resident raised their stage 1 complaint to the landlord. On 17 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged the complaint. |
|
31 January 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
|
|
15 April 2024 |
The resident told the landlord he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day. |
|
13 May 2024 – 30 August 2024 |
The landlord informed the resident there was going to be delays to his stage 2 response on 3 occasions. |
|
5 September 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The response said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident came to this Service because the issues with the leak and damp are continuing. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of an external leak in the resident’s home |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- On 22 November 2023, the landlord’s records show the resident gave notice to the landlord there was a leak in the property. The landlord attended on 28 November 2023 and no damp or mould was found.
- On 24 January 2024, the landlord undertook a further inspection at the resident’s home. This was after the resident raised his complaint. The landlord’s records show a Condensation Assessment Report was completed.
- The report contained photos of both the interior and exterior of the resident’s property. The report included 3 photos which appear to show some cracks to the exterior of the property.
- The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint responses the leak was most likely to be coming from the external brickwork. It said a works order was raised to attend and carry out the repairs to the external brickwork. An appointment was made for 9 February 2024 for the contractor to inspect before any works.
- The landlord, in its stage 2 response told the resident its records showed the inspection did not go ahead as the contractors could not gain access to the property. It also stated it could not find information to show the appointment was rescheduled.
- The stage 2 response says that, following the resident’s request to render the external walls, the landlord emailed communal repairs. A job was raised in July, but access was not gained on 14 August 2024, so it was rescheduled for 2 September 2024.
- The stage 2 complaint response told the resident, following the visit on 2 September 2024, there was no damp and no repairs required at the moment. The landlord offered £100 for the delay in investigating the external part of the resident’s home.
- The landlord acknowledged its failings in the delay to investigate the resident’s report of a leak. It apologised and offered compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the associated damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- When the resident reported a leak to the exterior of the property, he said it was seeping into his flat, causing damp.
- The landlord’s condensation assessment report showed there was condensation present in the resident’s home and it contained photos of the interior.
- In 2 photos there was an imperfection on a wall in the living room and in a photo of the room identified as bedroom 1, there appeared to be some wallcovering missing in sections on 2 walls.
- It is not clear to this Service what action the landlord took in relation to the findings of the Condensation Assessment Report.
- The resident told this Service the situation is affecting his health, and he wakes daily with a runny nose. He is concerned it will lead to more health problems.
- The landlord’s records show that another inspection was undertaken on 2 September 2024. It said there were low damp readings. The landlord said there were no defects that needed repairing.
- The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould recommends “Landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould. Landlords should review and update any associated processes and policies accordingly.”
- There is evidence the landlord carried out different inspections over a period of 10 months. The landlord recognised its delays in investigating the resident’s concerns. It offered an apology and offered compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- On 16 January 2024, the resident raised his stage 1 complaint and the landlord’s records show the complaint was acknowledged on 17 January 2024.
- On 31 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The complaint was upheld. The complaint response states the resident raised his complaint on 17 January 2024. This is inconsistent with its own records and is unreasonable in the circumstances.
- On 15 April 2024, the resident completed a webform to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged this request on the same day and said it aimed to respond by 14 May 2024.
- The landlord contacted the resident on 3 occasions to say there was a delay in the stage 2 response. The reasons given included it was experiencing a high volume of complaints, it was waiting more information, and it was waiting for the latest inspection before finalising the complaint response. This was unreasonable in the circumstances because it was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
- On 5 September 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. From the 15 April 2024 to the landlord issuing its stage 2 response on 5 September 2024 is 102 working days. This was unreasonable because this was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
- But the landlord recognised its failings in the delay issuing its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised and offered compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Learning
General
- The landlord carried out inspections, but it is not clear what actions it took. There was also a failed appointment. The landlord should have oversight of the outcome of inspections together with safeguards in place to prevent failed appointments.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s complaint responses provide contradictory dates in relation to the resident raising the stage 1 complaint. While only a small difference, this could show a lack of attention to detail and may impact the landlord / resident relationship.
- The landlord also told the resident in its complaint response it could not find information that an inspection appointment had been rescheduled.
- A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Communication
- The landlord did not respond in a timely manner to some of the resident’s communications. This could have had an impact on the landlord / resident relationship. There are opportunities for the landlord to be more proactive when receiving communication from a resident to prevent issues being missed or escalated through the complaint procedure.