From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Southwark Council (202443027)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443027

Southwark Council

28 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The resident’s housing application.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secured tenant of the landlord since 2009. Her property is a 2 bedroom flat, and the landlord is a local authority. Prior to the complaint process, the resident informed the landlord that she had asthma. She also said that her 4 year old son had eczema and her 17 year old son had autism.
  2. In May 2023 the resident reported a change of circumstances to the landlord in support of her housing application. The landlord informed her in June 2023, that it assessed her application and found that the household had a severe medical requirement for a move which entitled her to a priority band 2. In October 2024 the landlord informed the resident that after reviewing the information she provided, it concluded there was no change in the household medical priority.
  3. In June 2023 the resident reported an issue with damp and mould in the property, she also said that it needed to install extractor fans in the kitchen and the bathroom. On 21 July 2023 the landlord inspected the issues and applied mould treatment to the affected areas. In December 2023 Its contractor informed it that the extractor fans installation was outstanding. It explained that it may require permission before proceeding with installing extractor fans in the property because it was a listed building.
  4. In January 2024 the resident requested an update on the installation of the extractor fans in the kitchen and the bathroom. She also reported that the mould had returned. Between February 2024 and March 2024, the landlord discussed with its contractor what type of fans it could install, which would be suitable for the sash windows and the property. In March 2024 it applied mould treatment to the areas affected by mould.
  5. In February 2024 the resident made a disrepair claim, which included disrepairs relating to damp and mould. The disrepair surveyor inspected the property on 10 April 2024 and recommended remedial repairs. In July 2024 the landlord completed the recommended repairs to the windows. On 2 August 2024 it noted that the vent to the kitchen was outstanding.
  6. The resident settled her disrepair claim with the landlord before any court proceedings were issued. She received £1000 compensation from the landlord, and it agreed to complete the agreed remedial repairs by 28 January 2025.
  7. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 7 November 2024. She said there was mould around the windows in most rooms within the property. She explained that her asthma had worsened because of the damp and mould. She also expressed concerns about the potential impact of damp and mould on her sons.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 15 November 2024, and said:
    1. The resident registered on the housing list for a transfer and on 23 July 2013, she was given band 2 priority. It summarised the resident’s bidding history to date. It also provided advice on the criteria for the additional priority within the band and the information she would need to provide.
    2. Its damp and mould team would contact her to discuss the issue of damp and mould in her property.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 November 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord referring to her bidding history. She explained that since 2013, her circumstances had changed.
  10. On 16 December 2024 the landlord informed the resident it needed more time to respond to her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 6 January 2025, and said:
    1. The resident had not provided the information it requested in its stage 1 complaint response to assess her “work” priority in support of her housing application.
    2. The resident made a disrepair claim about outstanding repairs in the property. It said that it completed the outstanding repairs and closed her disrepair claim.
    3. On 28 November 2024 it raised a job to treat mould in her property. On 20 December 2024 it treated the affected areas in the bedroom, the hallway, the bathroom ceiling and around the windows.
    4. On 5 December 2024 the resident shared that mould damaged some of her belongings. It provided information to her on making a “property and injury” liability insurance claim for her damaged belongings.
    5. It partially upheld the complaint.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process

  1. The resident raised a complaint with us on 25 January 2025. She described issues of reoccurring damp and mould in the property. She said that  overcrowding and the lack of adequate ventilation, especially in the kitchen and the bathroom exacerbated the problem. She acknowledged that the landlord completed remedial repairs, but she said it did not identify the root cause of the problem, and some repairs were outstanding. As a resolution to her complaint, she sought for the landlord to move her to a suitable property, complete the remedial repairs, compensate her for the inconvenience caused to her and her damaged belongings.
  2. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGCSO) investigated the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her housing application. On 11 April 2025 it informed the resident that it found no fault by the landlord.
  3. The landlord informed us that it believed that it had completed all the disrepairs identified during the disrepair claim. However, in July 2025, the resident’s representative said that some repairs were outstanding. It said that its legal disrepairs team was investigating the matter.
  4. In August 2025 the resident informed us that the issue of damp and mould was ongoing. She said the landlord carried out several mould treatments, repaired the windows trickle vents and completed damp and mould surveys but failed to resolve the problem. She explained the repairs to the blocked vent and the installation of the extractor fans were outstanding. She also described mould around the windows, her bedroom and in the bathroom.

Jurisdiction

  1. The Scheme governs what we can and cannot consider, which is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. When a resident brings a complaint to this service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint. The Scheme notes we may not consider complaints which, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
  1. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for a transfer, questioning her priority to bid for properties and presenting medical evidence to support her need to move.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her housing application is outside our jurisdiction. This is because The LGSCO has jurisdiction over complaints about social housing applications for local authority landlords. The evidence also shows that it investigated this element of the resident’s complaint in April 2025.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

  1. We recognise that the presence of damp and mould at the property has caused the resident some distress. The resident expressed concerns about the potential impact on her family’s health. Additionally, she explained that the damp and mould in the property had damaged her belongings. As a resolution to her complaint, she asked for the landlord to reimburse her for her damaged belongings. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with either as a personal injury claim or an insurance claim.
  2. The resident has informed this service that as a resolution to her complaint she would like the landlord to move her to another property. Whilst we can consider how a landlord has handled the resident’s complaint and whether it has followed fair process in considering the resident’s concerns relating to their complaint, we do not have the powers to instruct a landlord to allocate housing as a resolution to a complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Guide Booklet 2013 outlines its and its resident’s repair responsibilities and obligations. It says that its contractors will complete urgent repairs within 3 working days. It also says that its contractors will complete non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. It elaborates that it considers damp reports as non-urgent repairs and its contractors will inspect the issue with 20 working days to determine the best course of action.
  2. Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents to manage their expectations.
  3. On 21 June 2023 the resident reported the presence of mould in the hallway, the bedroom, the bathroom and the kitchen. The landlord inspected the problem 22 days later and recommended remedial repairs. While we recognise this was slightly outside it published timeframe, this would not amount to a service failure by the landlord.
  4. The evidence shows that it recommended carrying out a mould treatment and redecorating the area affected in the bedroom. The landlord repair log does not show when it completed the remedial repairs. However, the resident informed us that it did so within its published timeframe, which was reasonable.
  5. We recognise that since the resident reported damp and mould in 2023, the landlord has not blamed her or her lifestyle for the issue. It showed that it looked at the property and considered what it could do to help manage the problem. Those actions were reasonable and in keeping with our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to not automatically blame residents for damp and mould in their properties.
  6. We understand that the resident informed the landlord that mould had damaged some of her belongings. The evidence shows that during its complaint process, it provided her with the relevant information on making a “property and injury” liability claim. This was reasonable by the landlord.
  7. The resident acknowledges that although the mould returned, there were gaps in her reports, and she did not always chase the landlord about the outstanding repairs. She said that this was because she experienced bereavement and other issues since 2023, which took precedent over the repairs. She also explained that during those periods she had treated the mould herself. We can only determine there was service failure by a landlord if it had known about a problem and failed to act.
  8. However, after considering the evidence of the case, we identified several failings by the landlord such as delays in taking actions, poor communication, lack of oversight of the repairs and poor record keeping. Below are some key examples of those failings.
  9. The evidence shows that in June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the lack of adequate ventilation in the property contributed to the issue of damp and mould. Inadequate ventilation can result in a build-up of water vapour causing condensation and increasing the risk of mould forming in a property. In July 2023 its contractor recommended it installed extractor fans in the bathroom and the kitchen.
  10. In December 2023, its contractor reminded the landlord that the installation of the extractor fans was outstanding. While in January 2024 and February 2024, it discussed options to improve the ventilation in the property with its contractor. This was 7 months after its contractor recommended the repairs. In addition, it did not show that it made a decision on what it would do, took actions or updated the resident. It should have either started the process for seeking authorisation to install the fans in a listed building or made a decision on alternative forms of ventilation. Its failing to act was unreasonable, it delayed addressing the poor ventilation in the property and caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue as a disrepair claim.
  11. Furthermore, in January 2024, the resident reported that the mould had returned to the affected areas it treated a few months earlier. However, we did not see evidence that the landlord inspected or treated the problem. This was unreasonable by the landlord and not in keeping with its obligations as outlined in its Repairs Guide Booklet nor our spotlight report on damp and mould.
  12. Additionally, the landlord did not show it considered that although it had previously treated the mould, the problem kept reoccurring. Reoccurring damp and mould is a clear indicator for landlords that they have not resolved the underlying cause of the problem and should investigate further. In this case, the landlord did not show that it considered this or investigated further to identify the underlying issue. Instead, the evidence shows that when the resident reported the issue again in March 2024, it applied another mould treatment to the affected areas. Its failings to consider the reoccurring element of the issue caused inconvenience and distress to the resident, who had lived with reoccurring damp and mould since June 2023.
  13. We understand that the resident expressed concerns about the potential risks from damp and mould to the family’s health and in February 2024, she made a disrepair claim against the landlord. While she raised repairs not relating to this investigation, she also raised the issue of the reoccurring damp and mould in the property.
  14. When residents make a disrepair claim against their landlord, it is important that the landlord does not disengage from resolving the repair issues. In this case, we understand that the disrepair surveyor completed a detailed survey in April 2024 and recommended remedial repairs.
  15. We recognise that in July 2024, the landlord completed the recommended repairs to the windows and installed trickle vents to improve the ventilation within the property. However, this was nearly 3 months after the surveyor recommended the repairs and 6 months after the resident raised the disrepair claim. We understand that the resident settled the claim with the landlord without going to court in September 2024, and it agreed to complete the identified remedial repairs by January 2025.
  16. However, in our opinion, those were unreasonable delays. This is because the landlord knew about the problem and should have been proactive in resolving the damp and mould. The resident’s disrepair claim should not have prevented it to act. Especially as it was aware of the household vulnerabilities and the family had lived with reoccurring damp and mould for a year. The landlord’s delays in taking actions were unreasonable and not in keeping with its Repairs Guide Booklet or our spotlight report for landlords to act with a sense of urgency in cases of damp and mould.
  17. Furthermore, the landlord informed us that it thought its contractor had completed all the repairs recommended by the disrepair surveyor. It said it only became aware that some repairs were outstanding when, in July 2025, the resident’s representative contacted it about it. We understand that the landlord appointed a contractor to carry out the remedial repairs recommended. Nevertheless, it retained the responsibility for the repairs and should have kept oversight of the repairs to completion.
  18. The evidence shows that it failed to keep oversight of the repairs it agreed to do as part of the disrepair claim. For example, its contractor informed it in August 2024, that the repairs to the kitchen required follow up work. The landlord did not show that it ensured itself that its contractor organised the follow up repairs and completed the repair as agreed. This was unreasonable by the landlord, it should have kept oversight of the repair to completion. Its lack of oversight of the repairs was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to identify any outstanding repairs sooner.
  19. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) (May 2023) said that “Consistently, we find that poor knowledge and information management is a key contributing factor to why the landlord fails to provide an adequate service, particularly in the repairs service”. In this case, there are gaps in the landlord’s repair logs that have inevitably affected its ability to resolve the substantive repairs issues. Its poor record keeping also made it difficult to establish the facts of the case while investigating this complaint.
  20. For example, in its complaint response it said that it applied a mould treatment to the affected areas on 20 December 2024. It is unclear whether this repair was in response to the disrepair survey done in April 2024, or to the resident reporting that the mould had returned. However, there is no record of this repair on its repair log. This was unreasonable by the landlord and not in keeping with its obligations of keeping accurate records of all repairs.
  21. Furthermore, while the landlord provided a detailed work schedule listing the remedial repairs recommended by the surveyor in April 2024, it did not adequately record those on its repair log. For example, we did not see evidence on its repair log that it had raised the repairs to complete the repointing by the front door, renew the plaster vent, wash down the areas affected by mould with “RLT Bactdet solution”, and apply “RLT Halophen solution”. This was unreasonable by the landlord. Its poor record keeping impacted its ability to keep oversight of the repairs and delayed resolving the issues of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
  22. Our Spotlight Report on damp and mould says that landlords should recognise that damp and mould can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of residents. While the resident had repeated her concerns about the impact of mould on her health and her sons’ health, we saw no evidence the landlord considered this or assessed the risks. It did not show it acknowledged the resident’s concerns in relation to the damp and mould problem which was inappropriate and unreasonable. We recognise that we did not see evidence its failings significantly impacted the overall outcome for the resident. This is because she said that her disabled son would not manage a move to temporary accommodation and the landlord could do the required repairs with the family in situ.
  23. We have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 or the Human Rights Act 1998. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties. In this case, the resident informed the landlord that her son had autism. It did not show that it had discussed this with her or considered whether it should make reasonable adjustments when delivering its services to the household. This was unreasonable by the landlord, it should have considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. We recognise however that we did not see evidence its failings significantly impacted the overall outcome for the resident.
  24. Our Spotlight Report on damp and mould says that landlords should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with the residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould. They should also share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps.
  25. In this case, the landlord did not show that it effectively communicated with the resident on the issues. It did not show that it shared the outcome of its inspections with her or updated her on the status of the repairs. This was unreasonable by the landlord, its failings caused inconvenience to the resident and eroded her confidence in its ability to resolve the damp and mould.
  26. The resident informed us that the damp and mould issue was ongoing. She acknowledged that the landlord completed remedial repairs, but she said the damp and mould returned. She said that although the landlord installed trickle vents to improve the ventilation within the property, it did not resolve the problem. She also informed the landlord in July 2025, that some of the remedial repairs it agreed to do in April 2024, were outstanding. We understand that the landlord is now investigating the matter.
  27. We are not assessing the landlord’s handling of the repairs beyond its stage 2 complaint response as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. This would normally require the resident to log a new complaint about these events for the landlord to consider. However, we feel that this would unreasonably add to the time and trouble the resident has taken in pursuing the matter. Therefore, we order the landlord to carry out a damp and mould survey and establish the effectiveness of the completed remedial repairs in resolving the matters. We also order the landlord to complete any remedial repairs, if any, within a reasonable timeframe.
  28. After considering the above, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We recognise that it did not blame the resident’s lifestyle, inspected the issue, completed remedial repairs and advised the resident her on making an insurance claim for her damaged belongings.
  29. However, there were delays in making a decision about installing the extractor fans and completing some of the recommended remedials repairs. The landlord showed poor oversight of the repairs and poor record keeping Practices. It failed to consider the reoccurring element and the accumulative impact of damp and mould on the resident. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident and provide her with regular updates. It did not show that it assessed the potential risks to the family and consider its obligations under the Equality and Human Rights Acts.
  30. While we recognise that there were gaps in the resident’s reports of the issues, the evidence shows that she lived with reoccurring damp for 18 months. The landlord’s failings and delays in resolving the problems caused her distress and inconvenience. She reported being concerned about the impact of damp and mould on her family’s health and said it significantly impacted her asthma. She also spent time and effort dealing with the issues, made a disrepair claim and raised complaints with the landlord and us about its handling of the matters.
  31. We understand that as part of its settlement of the resident’s disrepair claim it paid the resident £1000 in compensation. We recognise that while the resident’s claim mostly related to disrepair linked to damp and mould, it also concerned repairs not considered within this complaint. However, the landlord did not show how much of its settlement offer related to its handling of the damp and mould. Additionally, its settlement offer related to its handling of the repairs prior to September 2024 and did not reflect its handling of the matter after this. Therefore, we cannot determine its offer amounted to “reasonable redress” and an order of compensation is made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings found in this report.
    2. Clarify to us and the resident how much of its settlement offer related to its handling of the disrepairs linked to the damp and mould at the property.
    3. To pay £550 in compensation directly to the resident (this is inclusive of the offer made by the landlord as part of the disrepair claim in September 2024, and it should deduct it from this amount if it has already paid it). This is equivalent to:
      1. £200 for the delays in completing some of the repairs, its lack of oversight of the repairs and its failings in sharing its findings with the resident.
      2. £200 to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident who had to raise the issues as a complaint.
      3. £150 for failing to assess the potential risks to the household health and its failings to consider its obligations under the Equality and the Human rights Acts.
    4. To assess the risks from damp and mould to the family. Its risk assessment is to include the measures it will take to mitigate the risks to the family (if any). The landlord is to share the risk assessment and actions to mitigate the risks with this service.
    5. To discuss the household vulnerabilities with the resident and consider whether it should make reasonable adjustments to its service delivery in keeping with its obligations. The landlord is to provide evidence to us that it has completed this.
  2. Within 6 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to carry out a damp and mould survey of the property by a suitably qualified damp and mould surveyor. The landlord must share the outcome of the survey and the schedule of work for any remedial works it found (if any) with the resident and this service. This must include the timeframe for completing the repairs identified (if any).
  3. Within 8 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to carry out a review of this case. This should include a review of its practices, especially how it records repairs and keeps oversight of repairs once reported to its appointed contractor. It is to share its findings and plans for any improvements with this service.