Southwark Council (202415795)

Decision
Case ID	202415795
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	20 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a fourth-floor flat with her husband and children. The resident has damp and mould in her bedroom. The landlord said it would inspect the roof, however, the area above the damp and mould was not accessible.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of roof repairs.
2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of roof repairs

The landlord’s repair records were incomplete. The landlord said it would inspect the roof, but this was not done. The landlord said this was because the contractor did not provide proof of a leak into the resident’s property. It communicated this to the resident after she complained. The landlord ordered an inspection after the resident resent it photos of the issues. The landlord did not inspect all the roof. It said it needed to look at a ‘box gutter’ but there was no evidence this was resolved.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord did not address all the issues the resident raised. It did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and she had to chase it for a response. The landlord took too long to send its stage 2 complaint response. The response was confused and unclear.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 18 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £400 for any time, trouble, and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of roof repairs caused her £200 for any time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any compensation it has already paid.	No later than 18 December 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must arrange an inspection of the roof. It must satisfy itself the damp and mould in the resident’s property is not caused by a leak. It must take reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure: the roof area above the resident’s property, including the area(s) affected by damp and mould is inspected. It must provide a written inspection report with photos The survey report must set out: whether there is any damage to the roof or gutters (including the ‘box guttering’) whether the landlord is responsible for repairing or resolving any issues, together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 18 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 December 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she reported mould in June 2023, the landlord visited and agreed a roof inspection was needed. She said a roofing contractor visited and told her the mould was related to previous roof works. The resident said during the visit she mentioned tiles had recently been blown off. She said the contractor told her scaffolding was needed to inspect the guttering and replace the tiles. The resident said no work had been done since the visit.
22 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
10 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said the resident reported missing roof tiles on 7 November 2023. The landlord said a subsequent inspection did not prove there was a leak. This meant it could not approve scaffolding or repairs. The landlord said after it received the resident’s complaint it asked the contractor to provide another report on the missing tiles and guttering. It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised and said it would monitor the repairs to completion.
22 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s response had not covered all the issues she raised. The resident said it had not investigated how missing roof tiles, guttering issues, damage from major works and the flat roof had contributed to damp and mould. She said it had not addressed the costs of removing mould and redecorating.
15 March 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said the contractor had not sent photos to show the mould was caused by external issues. The landlord said after the resident sent photos it ordered an investigation and roof repairs. It said it would replace missing roof tiles. The landlord referred to an investigation of the external area above where the mould was. It said the inspection and gutter clearance was difficult. The landlord said it would contact the resident when it received the inspection report. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for the delays and awarded £100 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us in July 2024. She said the landlord replaced the roof tiles but not investigated guttering issues. The resident said despite cleaning and redecorating, mould returned in bedroom, and the cupboard walls were wet. She said she wanted the landlord to fix the problems.

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 roof repairs
Finding	Maladministration

There were historical issues with the roof. We encourage residents to complain to their landlord in a timely manner. This is so the landlord can consider issues when they are ‘live’ and evidence is readily available. We usually consider the 12-month period before a complaint is made. This investigation has looked at the period from December 2022 until the landlord’s final complaint response on 15 March 2024.
A condensation assessment in May 2023 said there was mould in the resident’s property, which seemed to be due to roofing issues. The landlord subsequently ordered a roof inspection and told the resident it would contact her after it inspected. The ‘guide for leaseholders’ confirms the landlord is responsible for the roof, chimney and gutters and resident is responsible for the interior of the property. The landlord acted correctly in ordering a inspection, however, there was no evidence it completed a roof inspection.
On 25 November 2023 the resident chased the landlord about the repairs. There was no evidence the landlord responded.
A report from a visit on 6 December 2023 said there appeared to be black mould and water ingress in the bedroom. It said scaffolding was needed to inspect the roof. A subsequent landlord internal email said the contractor had not provided evidence of a leak and it would not authorise scaffolding. After the resident complained, the landlord asked the contractor to send better photos of the leak.
On 22 December 2023 the resident reported roof tiles and chimney pots had been dislodged by the wind. There was no evidence the landlord responded.
The landlord closed the roof inspection order on 28 December 2023. The landlord did not communicate this to the resident until 10 January 2024. It explained it did not have photos of the leak and could not justify the cost of scaffolding. The resident told the landlord she sent photos with her complaint. She resent the pictures, and the landlord ordered an inspection and roof repair.
An inspection on 24 January 2024 confirmed there was black mould, an apparent leak and missing tiles. It said the gutters were blocked but a full roof inspection required scaffolding. There is no evidence a full inspection was subsequently completed.
In February and March 2024, the resident chased the landlord about the repairs and a missed repair appointment. There was no evidence the landlord responded.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it replaced the tiles and cleaned the gutter. The response referred to a “commitment” to clear and resolve issues with a ‘box gutter’ above the mould. It said the height of the box gutter prevented inspection or repairs. The landlord said it would update the resident after it received an inspection report. It apologised for its poor communication and repair delays and awarded £100 compensation.
There was no evidence the landlord provided the resident with the update it promised at stage 2. The landlord’s repair records were incomplete and lacked detail. It recorded unspecified works were completed and it attempted to erect scaffolding. The records did not say if the repairs and scaffolding attempt related to the ‘box gutter’ or a full roof inspection. The resident told us the issues were not fixed; the cupboard walls were wet and mould returned after she cleaned it. She said she had given up chasing the landlord. The landlord said all works were complete, and no further issues had been reported.
Where the landlord admitted failings, we consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. 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.
The landlord acknowledged there were repair delays, and it communicated poorly. It inspected some of the roof and did some repairs. However, the landlord did not complete a full roof inspection or resolve all the issues. This suggests it did not learn from its previous communication and repair failings. It offered £100 compensation, but this does not reflect the scale of the detriment to the resident. For these reasons we found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to take action, apologise to the resident and pay £300 additional compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets the timeframes for the landlord to acknowledge a complaint and send a response at stage 1 and stage 2.
On 10 December 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 December 2023 and said it would respond at stage 1 by 10 January 2024. The landlord did not send a complaint acknowledgement within the timeframe required by the Code.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 January 2024. This was within the timeframe set out in its acknowledgement but was 10 days after the response time required by the Code.
The landlord did not address all the issues in the resident’s complaint. It failed to respond to her concern that previous roof repairs had caused the damp and mould. This was not in keeping with the Code.
On 22 January 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request.
The resident chased the landlord about her complaint, but the landlord did not respond to several emails from the resident. It sent its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024. This was 20 working days after the response time required by the Code.
The Code requires landlords to use clear, plain language. The landlord’s complaint responses were not clear or accessible. Its stage 2 response did not explain in a clear and accessible way what work it had done and what was outstanding.
As a result of these failings, we found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £200 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there have been failings that adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair records were incomplete and lacked detail.

Communication

The landlord did not communicate clearly or in a timely manner. It did not keep the resident updated on its decision making about the roof repairs, the process of the works or the outcome of inspections.