Southwark Council (202437404)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437404

Southwark Council

21 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. request for his housing priority bidding band to be changed
2. reports of damp and mould
3. request for the carpet flooring in the property to be replaced with hard flooring
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

The resident’s request for his housing priority bidding band to be changed

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. This is called our jurisdiction.
Housing allocations, bidding, banding, and the housing register are functions which are administered by the local authority. We can only consider complaints about local authorities in their role as landlords and not their wider role as a local authority. Any complaints that relate to these functions would be better discussed with the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is line with paragraph 41.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters in respect of local housing authorities which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.
Additionally, we would not propose a remedy that would put matters right for the resident but may adversely affect other individuals or mean that the resident had received preferential treatment compared to others in the same situation. For example, we would not say that a landlord should offer a resident a particular property, where there are other applicants who have a higher priority for that property, as that would be unfair to the other applicants.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for his housing priority band to be changed is outside of our jurisdiction.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy began in April 2016. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. There is another property below the resident’s which is occupied by a leaseholder. The resident lives in the property with his partner and their children. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. However, the resident has reported that one of the children in the property (Child A) is asthmatic and has an allergy to dust mites. Child A has been hospitalised multiple times as a result of their respiratory health.
On 1 December 2022 the landlord’s repair logs note that a job was raised for a damp and mould inspection in the property. The landlord’s records show that on 12 January 2023, it also raised a job for a mould wash to be completed in “most areas” of the property.
On 17 March 2023 a surveyor made recommendations to the landlord to resolve the damp and mould in one of the bedrooms. The surveyor recommended that the plaster be removed on the chimney breast and a 3:1 ratio render of sand and cement with a waterproofing additive be applied. The landlord’s records show that it undertook this work and a mould wash between 17 and 21 April 2023.
On 11 December 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He stated that there was mould in the property, which was making Child A unwell. He also told the landlord that there was a new baby in the property.
On 27 December 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had no record of reports of damp and mould in the property, but it would arrange an inspection.
On 5 January 2024 the landlord visited the property. Its records show that the resident had been regularly cleaning the mould to manage it. It noted that the extractor fans in the property had been switched off at the isolation switch and so it encouraged the resident to use the fans.
On 21 February 2024 a Paediatric Respiratory Specialist Nurse wrote to the landlord about Child A. They noted that Child A had been hospitalised a number of times as a result of their respiratory condition. They noted that the mould and carpets in the property were likely to be contributing to Child A’s poor health and explained that Child A was allergic to dust mites which breed and thrive in carpets.
On 27 February 2024 the resident complained that there was mould in the property. He also noted that the landlord’s policy meant he had no choice but to have carpet because it was a first floor flat. The resident stated that both the mould and the carpet were making Child A’s health condition worse. On 4 March 2024 the landlord responded and advised the resident to contact its repairs department to resolve the mould as soon as was practical.
On 13 March 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. The resident reported that there was “constant” mould in the property which he had to clean off regularly. He expressed frustration that the landlord’s policy had forced him to have carpet flooring which was “gravely exacerbating” Child A’s breathing condition. The resident reported that these issues meant that Child A’s school attendance was poor and they had been hospitalised multiple times as a result of their health condition. He asked the landlord to take the matter seriously.
On 6 November 2024, the landlord provided its final complaint response. It reported that the resident had declined further mould washes because he wanted to do it himself, and that the mould in the property was “light.” The landlord stated it would arrange an inspection of the property to look at preventative measures. Additionally, the landlord stated that there was no evidence that the carpet in the property was an issue and recommended that the resident increase the frequency of vacuuming.
On 14 April 2025 the landlord attempted to arrange a further damp and mould inspection but the resident did not allow access. The resident has explained to us that he has lost trust in the landlord’s ability to resolve the matter and has stopped reporting it as a result. The resident has stated that damp and mould are still present in the property at the time of this report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is understood that there have been historical reports of damp and mould by the resident. We consider it reasonable for a resident to raise a formal complaint about matters within a reasonable period of issues occurring, usually considered to be 12 months. This is so the landlord has an opportunity to investigate the matters while they are still live and while relevant records are still readily available. It is not evident that the resident raised a formal complaint about these earlier matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the reports from December 2022 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response.
The resident has also raised concerns that the mould in the property and the carpeted flooring have impacted the health of his child, Child A. This aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that the health of anyone in his household has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Damp and mould

The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021) report states landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. The report states that ‘landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord has not provided a damp and mould policy. The landlord’s repairs policy states that damp is a non-urgent repair which it will attend within 20 working days to assess the issue and decide what to do next.
The landlord’s records show that on 1 December 2022 it raised a job for a damp and mould inspection. It is unclear which report this inspection was raised in relation to. The landlord did not attend until 12 January 2023. This was more than 20 working days after the inspection was initially raised which was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
Following the inspection, the landlord raised works to address the damp and mould in the property; however, these works did not take place until April 2023, which was 3 months after the landlord attended and outside of its advertised time frame. It is unclear what the reason for the delay was.
While not meeting a policy timeframe is not necessarily a failing in itself, it is reasonable for a landlord to evidence that the resident was being kept up to date with the progress of the works and the reasons for any delays. We understand that some repairs can be complex and require several visits, for example where the cause of an issue is not clear. During this time, it is reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and provide assurances that it is taking the matter seriously. This was not the resident’s experience in this case and this caused distress.
The landlord’s records suggest that there were further visits in June and September 2023 to complete some follow up works, including to refit a radiator and a window baton. It was noted that the redecoration was still outstanding, and it is unclear when or if this was completed.
The resident complained to the landlord on 11 December 2023. In its response, the landlord stated it had no record of the resident’s reports of mould. This was an inappropriate response because the resident reported mould on several occasions, and the landlord had also taken action previously. This demonstrates that either the landlord’s record keeping or its complaint investigation was insufficient.
The evidence suggests that the landlord visited the resident in response to his complaint and identified that the resident was cleaning the mould himself in order to manage it. It noted that 2 extractor fans in the property were switched off. The landlord failed to take steps to investigate the cause of the mould and it did not explain what action it could take to prevent the mould reoccurring after it had been cleaned. It also appeared to rely on the resident’s own cleaning as a solution to the issue, rather than seeking a permanent solution. This was inappropriate as the resident was inconvenienced by needing to carry out mould cleaning regularly.
When the resident raised a further complaint in February 2025, the landlord told the resident he needed to report the mould to its repairs team rather than its complaints team. Given the repeated reports and its failure to resolve the issue, the landlord should have taken ownership of the problem. It didn’t do this which was a failure and likely caused more distress to the resident. The landlord’s response appears to lack empathy or an understanding of the issues being raised. We would expect to see landlords take reports of damp and mould seriously, and the landlord missed an opportunity to provide an action plan or timeframe in which it would address the reported mould. The resident was evidently frustrated by not knowing when the matter would be addressed.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address Child A’s vulnerabilities and outline what it intended to do in response. The landlord missed an opportunity to provide further support and guidance to the resident or to assure him it was taking the matter seriously. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider the needs of vulnerable residents when deciding how to act.
While we cannot determine any causal links between the issues raised and the health of the resident and his family, we can consider if the landlord responded appropriately when the resident raised these concerns. The landlord did not provide any response to the resident’s concerns about Child A’s health despite it being raised on multiple occasions and the significant distress the matter was causing the resident. This was a significant failure.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights cited that the tone of communication with residents was a major factor that impacted on the service residents received. The report cited that when the tone of the landlord’s response “dismiss[ed] a resident’s lived experiences”, it resulted in the resident feeling they had received unfavourable treatment. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s communication with the resident lacked empathy and was dismissive of his concerns about the mould and Child A’s health.
In its final complaint response, the landlord referred to the mould as “light”. It is unclear what evidence the landlord relied on when determining the extent of the mould. By describing the mould as “light” without any explanation for how it arrived at this conclusion, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously.
The landlord explained it would need to visit again to assess the current circumstances and what steps it could take to address and prevent the mould. The landlord stated it would attempt to arrange a visit on 31 October 2024, but this date had passed by the date of the final response. This would have caused further frustration for the resident.
In summary, we find severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The following are aggravating factors in determining the outcome of this investigation:
1. The mould is still present in the property, 32 months after the landlord raised a damp and mould inspection.
2. The landlord has not taken sufficient steps to investigate or address the cause of the mould to stop it returning.
3. The landlord relied on the resident to clean the mould as a solution.
4. The landlord’s communication was dismissive and unempathetic.
5. Child A is vulnerable, and the landlord has not demonstrated it has taken this into account.
6. The evident distress experienced by the resident.
Additionally, the landlord has not apologised to the resident, offered any compensation, or outlined any reflection or learning in its complaint responses. We have made orders below to reflect this.
To decide what orders to make, we have considered our remedies guidance which is available on our website. The evidence in this case suggests there were a series of failures that had a detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord’s responses exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord missed several opportunities to put things right and learn from its own failures. In light of the failures identified in this report, the landlord must pay the resident £1,000 compensation.
The resident explained to us that the mould is still present in the property, and he is continuing to clean it himself, because he has lost trust in the landlord’s ability to resolve it. Repairs often require the cooperation of residents to facilitate appointments and ensure the landlord has access to the property. The tenancy agreement also states that residents must allow access to the landlord for the purposes of repairs, as long as the landlord has given at least 24 hours notice.
While we understand the resident reservations about allowing the landlord to visit the property, we have made an order for the landlord to offer to inspect the property. On acceptance from the resident, it must attend and outline what steps it will take to resolve the mould.

The carpet flooring

The landlord’s repairs policy states it is not responsible for repairing or replacing the floor coverings in the property, including the carpet. The tenancy handbook states that the landlord will not grant permission for residents to install hard flooring if it is likely to cause noise nuisance.
The resident expressed frustration that the landlord would not grant permission to change the flooring in the property to hard flooring. He also reported that the carpets in the property are contributing to Child A’s poor health.
The landlord has explained that it feels there is insufficient evidence that the carpet is impacting Child A’s health. While the resident disputes this, the landlord has explained its position and given advice on what the resident can do to mitigate any dust in the carpets. This was an appropriate response.
We have seen evidence relating to historical noise nuisance reports by the leaseholder who occupies the flat below the resident’s. The reports noted that the hard flooring previously in the resident’s property was very noisy. The landlord wrote to the resident to request that the hard flooring was replaced with carpet due to the noise transference. The evidence provided indicates that the resident and the occupier of the downstairs flat both contributed towards the cost of the carpets in the resident’s property.
In line with its policy, the landlord was within its rights to decline the resident’s request to change the flooring back because there was evidence that hard flooring would cause noise nuisance. While the resident was aware of the previous noise nuisance, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have referenced this in its response in order to make the reasons for its decision clear. This was a shortcoming by the landlord, but it did not impact the overall outcome for the resident.
We consider that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the carpet flooring in the property to be replaced with hard wood flooring.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes, and build good relationships with residents.
The Code states that the landlord’s complaint process must only have 2 stages. Landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through its complaints process unless it has a valid reason to do so.
The Code also states that stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days responded to within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlords own complaints policy is compliant with the Code.
The resident first complained on 11 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. It provided its stage 1 response on 27 December 2023. This was a time frame of 10 working days and in line with the Code.
The resident made a further complaint on 27 February 2024. Given the close time proximity to the resident’s previous complaint and that it was the same issues being raised, the landlord should have escalated the matter to stage 2 of its process. However, the landlord treated this as a further stage 1 complaint. It did not provide a position as to why this approach was taken, which was inappropriate. This effectively meant that the landlord’s complaint procedure was a 3-stage process for the resident, because he needed to make a 3rd complaint to reach stage 2. This delayed the resident in being able to escalate the matter to us.
The landlord acknowledged the further complaint the next day and responded within 10 working days, which was appropriate and in line with the Code.
The resident escalated his complaint on 13 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on time which was appropriate. However, the landlord responded to the complaint on 6 November 2024, which was 89 working days after the complaint was escalated.
Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure of service. We acknowledge that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. The Code states that the landlord should contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframe. This response was inappropriate.
The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration. This is because it did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 in line with the Code, and its stage 2 response was provided significantly outside of the timeframes set out in the Code. The landlord has apologised for the delay but has not offered any redress to reflect this.
The landlord must pay the resident £100 in light of the delays caused by the complaint handling failures identified. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has not taken sufficient steps to put things right after identifying failures.

Determination

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for his housing priority band to be changed is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the carpet flooring in the property to be replaced with hard flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident in writing for the failures noted in this determination. The apology should be made by a director or member of the senior leadership team.
2. Paid the resident a total compensation of £1,100 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to this report. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or debt owed. This amount is broken down as:
  1. £1,000 in relation to the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £100 in relation to the complaint handling failures identified.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination, and if agreed to by the resident, the landlord must:
1. Carry out an inspection of the property and set out its position on what works are required in relation to the damp and mould.
2. Write to the resident with the outcome of the inspection and include time scales of when the work identified will be completed.
3. A copy of this should be provided to us.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Attitudes, Rights, and Respects report, if it has not already done so.