Southwark Council (202453402)

Decision
Case ID	202453402
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about damp and mould in her flat caused by a lack of ventilation. She said she had not been able to open her windows due to overgrown plants and a fear that rats would get into her flat. She said she had been asking the landlord to cut down the plants since 2021. She said the landlord cut the plants back on 5 November 2024. However, she wanted it to repair the damage caused to her flat by the mould.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overgrown plants, damp, and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overgrown plants, damp, and mould.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overgrown plants, damp, and mould

There was some delay in the landlord cutting back the tree/plants outside the resident’s flat. However, the landlord cut the tree/plants back, apologised, and offered proportionate compensation in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the delay in the stage 1 response and offered compensation. However, it did not acknowledge the delay in its escalation of the complaint to stage 2. This meant the offer of compensation was not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation

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 23 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £150 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £100 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s 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.	No later than 23 March 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

23 March 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident:

£150 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £100 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s 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.

No later than

23 March 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overgrown plants, damp, and mould is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
The landlord should ensure that there is a reporting route available for the resident should the tree/plants become overgrown again.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 November 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about condensation, damp, and mould in her flat caused by a lack of ventilation. She said she had told her housing officer in April 2021 that she could not open her toilet and passage windows as there were overgrown plants covering them. She said she had been asking the landlord to cut down the plants since then. She said her flat started to get damp and she had to repair her ceiling in 2022. She said she did not open her windows throughout the summer due to a fear of rats. She said the landlord cut the plants back on 5 November 2024. However, she said she was holding it responsible for the damage to her flat and she asked it to carry out an inspection.
23 December 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It said it had booked a damp and mould inspection in for 25 November 2024. It said it found that the walls and window surrounds were all dry and there were no external issues. It confirmed it had agreed to remove the plants and it would follow up with the relevant team to ensure they had completed the work. It offered the resident £250 compensation for time and trouble in relation to the damp and mould. It also offered £100 compensation for the delay in the stage 1 response and for failing to keep the resident updated during the complaint process.
30 December 2024	The resident contacted the landlord as she was unhappy with its response. She asked the landlord to increase the compensation to £500. She said the surveyor did not turn up for the appointment on 25 November 2024. She said she had not opened her windows for years due to a fear of a rat infestation. She asked the landlord to reconsider its response.
9 February 2025	The resident confirmed that she wanted her complaint escalated to stage 2 following contact from the landlord. She asked it to either increase the compensation or carry out the repairs to her home.
10 March 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delayed inspection and confirmed it had removed the plants. It said the inspection went ahead on 17 December 2024 and all recorded readings were dry. It said it did not find any external issues. It said the resident should claim on her own contents insurance for any damage. It said, if she did not have contents insurance, she could complete a property and injury liability report (link provided). It offered the resident an additional £50 compensation for the missed inspection appointment.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted the landlord to treat and clear the mould and repair her property.

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 response to the resident’s reports of overgrown plants, damp, and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident told us that she has been reporting issues with overgrown plants to the landlord since at least April 2021. She said she reported her concerns by email on 7 occasions between April 2021 and June 2024. She said the landlord did cut the plants back at times, but they grew back and the problem persisted. The resident’s lease confirms that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the communal gardens.
As the evidence provided by the landlord is very limited, we do not have copies of the resident’s emails or the landlord’s responses. We asked the landlord for further information to assist with our investigation. However, it has not responded to our request. This raises significant concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices. We would expect a landlord to have robust records as this allows it to track what actions it has taken and what remains outstanding, especially when it relates to a recurring issue. Detailed records also allow the landlord to provide answers when its actions are called into question. In this case, the lack of available records has affected our investigation as we are unable to draw conclusions on the landlord’s actions between April 2021 and June 2024.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported an issue with her hall ceiling to the landlord on 28 August 2024 as the paint was coming off. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether this related to the damp and mould or the tree/plants. The landlord visited the resident on 29 August 2024 and confirmed that the ceiling was safe. It ordered follow on works to “make good” the ceiling. However, it cancelled the works in October 2024 when it realised the resident was a leaseholder. This is in line with the lease which says the resident is responsible for carrying out and paying for repairs to her property including all floors, ceilings, plastering, and decorations.
The resident said the landlord cut the plants back on 5 November 2024. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident asked the landlord to cut back the plants. Although there does appear to have been some sort of delay given the landlord’s complaint responses. It is also unclear from the evidence provided how often the landlord’s grounds maintenance team was supposed to cut back the plants and whether it had carried out the work in line with those expectations.
The landlord made an appointment to inspect the resident’s property on 25 November 2024 following her formal complaint. The surveyor did not attend. There is no evidence to show that the landlord gave the resident any prior notice that the surveyor could not make the appointment. However, the landlord rebooked the appointment for 17 December 2024.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 17 December 2024. It noted that the resident had not opened her windows due to concerns that insects and rodents could enter her flat via a large nearby tree/plant. It confirmed that the resident had opened her windows since the landlord cut the tree/plant back. The landlord found “historical” mould on the external/window walls in the living room, bedrooms, and bathroom. It said it tested all areas and found that the affected areas were all dry. It also noted that there was no extractor fan in the bathroom and there was an old, redundant extractor fan in the kitchen. It found no external issues (it would be responsible for) and concluded that the cause of the mould was due to a lack of ventilation. The resident does not dispute this finding and she has acknowledged that there were no physical issues with her windows that would have prevented her from opening them.
The lease says the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and of the building and to make good any defect affecting that structure. There is no evidence to show that the landlord’s inaction or delay in cutting down the tree/plants directly caused the damp and mould in the resident’s flat. We understand that the fear of rats was a significant concern for the resident and this resulted in her keeping her windows closed. However, there were no defects found and the landlord was not responsible for ensuring the resident was adequately ventilating the property over and above its responsibilities within the lease.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £250 compensation for her “time and trouble” in resolving the issue. It did not explain how or why it had come to this decision within its complaint responses. It did not specifically acknowledge any delays or failures in its service. The compensation appears to be related to the inconvenience caused to the resident and the time and effort taken to resolve the issues. In the stage 2 response, it appropriately apologised and recognised that the surveyor did not attend the appointment on 25 November 2024. It acknowledged that the resident wanted to claim for the damage to her property and it appropriately provided a link to make a claim on its liability insurance. It offered an additional £50 compensation, which brought the total compensation to £300.
Where a landlord upholds a complaint and offers redress, we will consider whether the redress offered 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.
In this case the landlord’s apology, the completion of the work to cut back the tree/plant, and its offer of £300 compensation represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. The compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 11 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 November 2024. This was in line with the timeframe of 5 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 23 December 2024. This was outside of the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s policy. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £100 compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 December 2024 as she was unhappy with the complaint response. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 24 January 2025. The landlord responded on 29 January 2025 but it did not escalate the complaint. It was only when the resident contacted the landlord again on 5 February 2025 that it asked her whether she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. This was an unreasonable delay.
The resident confirmed on 9 February 2025 that she did want to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 11 February 2025. It sent the stage 2 complaint response on 10 March 2025. Both the acknowledgement and the response were within the timeframes set within the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the landlord did not acknowledge its delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
In light of the identified failings, we consider the offer of £100 compensation insufficient in the circumstances given the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer) to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure in the service it provided and the offer of compensation was not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Learning

The landlord should be clear with its leaseholders what its responsibilities are and what the leaseholder’s responsibilities are from the outset of a repair report to manage expectations. The landlord should also ensure it logs all leaseholder concerns and acts upon them, in line with its obligations, within a reasonable timeframe.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord provided very limited evidence in this case. It did not provide copies of correspondence from the resident or its responses. It did not provide any information to show when the resident first reported the tree/plants and it was unable to provide details of her reports going back to 2021. It did not provide key documents such as grounds maintenance information or the scope of works provided by its grounds maintenance team. This significantly affected our investigation.

Communication

The landlord’s evidence was so limited it has been difficult to assess its communication with the resident. We have seen very little evidence of communication between the landlord and the resident.