From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Southwark Council (202314265)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314265

Southwark Council

15 May 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:
    1. Handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.
    2. Response to reports of a damaged internal door.
    3. Handling of issues with the garden.
    4. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority and has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident moved to the property in June 2022. The landlord’s emails from July 2022 note that the resident logged a formal complaint about the condition of the garden when the property was let. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the complaint or the landlord’s response.
  3. On 2 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that her garden was not cleared before she moved to the property. She said it took 5 months for it to agree to cut her overgrown garden. She told it how once the overgrowth was cut there was a “hill” of rubbish left at the back of her garden. She explained how she could not use the garden and needed the rubbish cleared. She asked it for help. The resident repeated her concerns in June 2023. She said the garden should have been cleared before she moved to the property and told the landlord that she would take legal action.
  4. Following this, the resident contacted her MP and the landlord again on 21 July 2023. She said the landlord’s contractor had confirmed the weed growth in her garden was from a neighbouring property. She asked how the landlord would resolve the matter. The landlord acknowledged this contact as a complaint and issued its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023. It said:
    1. On 21 July 2023 it removed “a lot of bind weed” from the garden and the roots were traced back to the resident’s garden on its visit.
    2. It planned to visit the property on 9 August 2023.
    3. The overall matter would be discussed internally to allow it to then advise how to resolve the issue.
    4. It apologised for the delay experienced in obtaining an update and for the inconvenience caused. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 August 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. It provided a chronology of events from June to July 2023 explaining its contact with the resident following her concerns. It said:
    1. The damp and mould complaint was subject to a disrepair claim and an inspection was booked for 6 September 2023.
    2. The resident was unhappy with the condition of her garden upon moving. This included weed growth, rubbish and glass dumped in the garden. It assessed the situation in June 2023 and on 21 July 2023 it cleared the garden of rubbish
    3. In response to concerns about the condition of an internal door it said its Voids Team confirmed the property was inspected at the end of the void period and had passed its lettable standard.
    4. It would consider the resident’s request for compensation and assess the amount due. It would provide an update on 2 October 2023.
    5. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and felt the correct procedures were followed. It apologised for not responding in a timely manner.
  6. On 17 October 2023 the landlord told the resident it was still looking into the matter and offered her £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. On 31 October 2023 the landlord increased its offer to £340 compensation in total. It said this was made up of £120 for 12 weeks delay, £120 for distress and inconvenience, £50 time and trouble, and £50 for time and trouble relating to the escalated complaint.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and can not consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Within the resident’s complaint she raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property and the repair of an internal door. In January 2024 the resident, via her solicitor, issued particulars of claim to court about the internal condition of the property. The claim included concerns about damp and mould, water ingress, plaster damage, and an issue with communal lighting. Following this, in September 2024 settlement offers were discussed between the parties and the landlord has confirmed the court hearing was vacated in November 2024.
  3. Despite requests, the landlord and the resident have not provided further information on the court proceedings. However, the resident has confirmed works that formed part of the claim have been completed, including the internal door.
  4. Paragraph 42e of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
    1. concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
  5. The Ombudsman can not determine a matter already decided upon via legal proceedings or those that could have been raised as part of those proceedings. The evidence shows proceedings were issued about the internal condition of the property and work was agreed and completed as part of this (including the door). The matter was at court, settlement offers were discussed outside of court and the court hearing was vacated. As such the Ombudsman is satisfied that, as per paragraph 42e of the Scheme, the resident had the opportunity to raise the complaint about damp and mould and the internal door as part of legal proceedings.
  6. After careful consideration of the information available, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and the internal door are outside of jurisdiction and will not be considered further.

Handling of issues with the garden

  1. The landlord’s housing management and procedure manual sets out its lettable standard. It says gardens would be cleared of rubbish and not overgrown.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord completed some work to the garden in April 2022 and the resident moved to the property in June 2022. Within its internal emails from June 2022, the landlord accepted that the time taken to let the property (between April and June 2022) meant “weeds reappeared”. Following the resident’s contact in July 2022 the landlord agreed to address the overgrown garden using its voids budget. However, it did not complete this work until November 2022. This timeframe of around 5 months to address the overgrown garden was not appropriate.
  3. In May 2023 the resident told the landlord that after issues with her health and an operation, she had only noticed issues with the garden. She explained how there was a “hill” of rubbish left at the back of her garden. The resident repeated this in June 2023 and expressed dissatisfaction in the landlord not clearing the garden of rubbish before the property was let. While the landlord referred the resident to its Garden Referral scheme, there is no evidence to show it removed the rubbish at that time. This was not appropriate.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord submitted a business case for the removal of rubbish in November 2023. This was approved in January 2024 and it took until March 2024 to remove some rubbish from the garden. However, there is no evidence to show it removed what was “buried” in the garden and it remains unclear if it has since done this.
  5. It is noted that the resident raised concerns about a broken garden fence in June 2023 (more than a year after the start of her tenancy). The landlord appropriately wrote to the neighbour about the fence at that time. It explained to the resident that it dealt with health and safety concerns in relation to fences. The landlord’s approach to the fence issue was reasonable in the circumstances, it was not aware of any health and safety concerns and acted reasonably in writing to the neighbour in attempts to resolve matters.
  6. Overall, the landlord failed to clear the resident’s garden at the start of the tenancy as per its lettable standard. It took 5 months to address the overgrown garden and a further 10 months to remove rubbish. It remains unclear if it has removed all the rubbish, mainly items “buried” in the garden. The landlord’s handling of issues with the garden was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.
  7. It is accepted that the resident would have been caused some frustration in the landlord’s handling of the garden issues especially considering her personal circumstances at that time. The landlord’s failings were over a prolonged period of time and would have adversely affected the resident.
  8. Within the landlord’s complaint response it appropriately apologised for the delay but did not uphold the resident’s complaint. After the end of its internal complaints process, it offered the resident £290 compensation for the garden issues. It explained that there was a 12 week delay (from June 2022 to October 2022) and offered £10 per week for this. It offered £120 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for time and trouble. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to address its failure to clear rubbish from the garden despite being made aware of this. As such a greater compensation amount has been decided as more appropriate in these circumstances.
  9. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the landlord’s compensation offer of £290. The Ombudsman has decided £500 (including the £290 already offered) would be more proportionate to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident over a prolonged period of time.
  10. The Ombudsman has decided not to make a weekly compensation offer as it remains unclear if the landlord has removed all the rubbish from the garden. However, an order has been made in attempts to resolve any outstanding matters.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy from March 2021 defines a complaint as “any expression of dissatisfaction” about its services. It says it will respond to an initial complaint within 15 working days and 25 working days for a stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord’s internal email from 12 July 2022 notes the resident raised a “formal complaint” about the condition of the garden. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the complaint and there is no evidence to show the landlord responded as per its complaints policy at that time. This was not appropriate.
  3. In further contact with the landlord on 2 May 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction in the time taken for it to address the overgrown garden and it not removing rubbish. There is no evidence to show the landlord triggered its complaints process at that time, as per its policy, or that it clarified if the resident wished to raise a complaint if it was unsure. This was not appropriate.
  4. On 21 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about the same issues. Following this contact the landlord triggered its complaints process and appropriately responded on 4 August 2023. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 August 2023 and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. The timeframe of 31 working days exceeded that set within its complaints process. This was not appropriate.
  5. The landlord failed to offer compensation as part of its internal complaints process and took a further 26 days to offer the resident compensation in attempts to put things right. It is unclear why the landlord did not offer compensation within its stage 2 response especially as its complaints policy allows for financial compensation. This was not appropriate and was a missed opportunity to put things right sooner.
  6. Overall, the landlord failed to trigger its complaints process or clarify if the resident wanted to raise a complaint if it was unsure. When it did issue its stage 2 response it failed to acknowledge where things went wrong or offer the resident compensation in attempts to put things right. This would have added to the resident’s frustration with its service. While it did eventually offer compensation to the resident, it is unclear why it did not do this sooner. The landlord’s complaint handling failings amount to maladministration.
  7. As mentioned previously, on 31 October 2023 the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling. This compensation offer has been considered alongside this Service’s remedies guidance and a greater amount of £200 has been decided as more appropriate in the circumstances. The amount of £200 falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42e of the Scheme the following complaints are outside of jurisdiction:
    1. Handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.
    2. Response to reports of a damaged internal door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of issues with the garden.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £700 compensation. This is made up of:
      1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of issues with the garden. This includes £290 it previously offered, if this has not been paid to the resident already.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This includes £50 it previously offered, if this has not been paid to the resident already.
    3. To contact the resident to confirm if there are any outstanding issue with the garden rubbish, limited to the issues that formed part of this investigation. If there are, the landlord should explain its approach to the resident and provide a copy of its response to this Service.