Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Lewisham (202400587)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400587

Lewisham Council

14 July 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 the resident’s:
    1. Request for the landlord to remove a redundant water tank.
    2. Reports of a broken extractor fan, damp, and mould.
    3. Reports of a leak.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local council. The property is a 1st floor flat in a block. An arms length management organisation (ALMO) was responsible for the council’s housing management functions until 1 October 2023 when the council took back responsibility. For simplicity, this report refers to both the council and the ALMO as ‘the landlord’.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 October 2023 asking it to inspect a large water tank in his flat which was taking up a lot of space. On 16 October 2023 he reported mould in his bathroom. The landlord inspected the water tank on 6 November 2023. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 November 2023 to say the landlord had told him that it would replace the water tank and plaster the area but he had heard nothing further.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint (complaint A) on 2 December 2023, which said:
    1. The water tank was significantly large, corroded, and rusty. He was concerned it was contaminating stored water.
    2. The space housing the tank was in an unfinished state and needed plastering.
    3. A previous leak above the area had led to bacteria and mould growth and the size of the tank made it very difficult to clean around. He was concerned it was unhygienic and could attract rodents.
  4. The landlord carried out a mould wash in the bathroom on 6 December 2023. On 11 January 2024 the resident reported that the bathroom extractor fan was not working. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to complaint A on 16 January 2024. It said:
    1. The water tank was empty and not in use. It was not uncommon to leave redundant tanks in situ as they may be utilised later as part of a plumbing alteration or if the property changed use.
    2. The tank was not in need of repair or presenting any risk so, due to cost, the landlord would not remove it. The resident could apply for permission to remove it at his own cost.
    3. The landlord needed photos of the affected areas in order to investigate mould. It referred the resident to information on the landlord’s website about managing damp and mould in the interim.
  5. The landlord inspected the bathroom fan on 13 February 2024 and found it needed a specialist contractor to repair it. The resident reported a leak on 18 March 2024. The landlord attended the same day and found it was coming from the flat above. The occupant was not home so the landlord was unable to investigate further. The resident reported a leak in another room on 21 March 2024. Some time before 25 March 2024 the landlord accessed the upstairs flat and found an unauthorised occupant was living there. There was dangerous pipework, pumps, and wiring which were causing leaks. It turned off the pipework.
  6. The resident made another complaint on 27 March 2024 which the landlord logged as a new stage 1 complaint (complaint B). He said:
    1. The water tank was hindering the ability to replaster the area.
    2. There had been 2 leaks within the last 6 months, the latest of which remained unresolved after 2 weeks. It had spread to other rooms resulting in damage to his belongings.
    3. The landlord had still not repaired the bathroom fan which was exacerbating damp and mould.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to complaint B on 16 April 2024. It reiterated its position on the water tank and said:
    1. The plumber who had attended for the leak could not recall the door number of the upstairs flat and had been unable to contact the resident to ask him. As such it could not undertake further investigations at this stage. The resident should make contact if the leak was ongoing and provide the upstairs flat number.
    2. A specialist contractor had attended on 16 April 2024 and then submitted a quote for the extractor fan to the landlord. Once approved, the contractor would contact the resident to make an appointment.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and escalated complaint B to stage 2 on 7 May 2024. The landlord responded on 31 July 2024. The response said:
    1. The landlord had attended on 14 June 2024 to inspect areas that may need plastering. The operative needed a longer appointment to complete the work so would return on 12 August 2024.
    2. The landlord had traced leaks from upstairs flats in September 2023 and March 2024. Due to legal matters, it had been unable to complete repairs at the time but they were now resolved.
    3. The landlord was unable to take responsibility for damaged belongings. The resident could make a claim on his contents insurance or request a claim form from the landlord to claim against its own insurance policy.
    4. It apologised for the delay with the bathroom fan, damp and mould. A surveyor would inspect it on 5 August 2024 and then arrange any required works.
    5. It offered the resident £75 compensation to acknowledge the delays, distress, and inconvenience.
  9. The resident escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman. He remains dissatisfied that the landlord will not remove the water tank, the bathroom fan has still not been repaired, and that leaks, damp, and mould have damaged walls and personal belongings. He is also concerned about the impact on his health and that the root cause of the leaks has not been resolved. As a resolution he wants the landlord to pay additional compensation and move him to a different property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord considered a complaint regarding a leak from the upstairs flat and provided a final response on 11 September 2023. The resident then made complaint B in March 2024, which complained that he had had 2 leaks in the last 6 months. Ordinarily, the Ombudsman will consider matters in the 12 months leading up to a stage 1 complaint. However, as the landlord already considered the earlier leak as part of the earlier complaint, and the resident did not bring that complaint to this Service, we have not considered this in our investigation. Instead, we have focused on events starting from 18 March 2024, when the resident reported the second leak.
  2. The resident told us that the issues had affected his health. It is beyond our expertise to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements, which is not within the Ombudsman’s remit. We have, however, considered the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to the concerns he raised about his health.
  3. The resident told us that as a resolution, he would like the landlord to rehouse him. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance explains that we cannot order a remedy that would put things right for the resident but would adversely affect other individuals, or that would mean the resident had received preferential treatment compared to others in the same situation. This means that we are unable to order a landlord to transfer a resident. This is because it could adversely affect other transfer applicants if the resident were to be prioritised for a move ahead of them. It would also mean the resident had been given preferential treatment if his request to move was not assessed in line with the relevant policy, as other applicants would have been.

Request for the landlord to remove a redundant water tank

  1. The landlord should have treated the resident’s initial request to inspect the tank as a routine repair request. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will respond to such requests within 20 working days. The inspection took place 5 calendar days past this timeframe, a minor delay.
  2. The Ombudsman expects landlords and their contractors to maintain comprehensive records of all contact with residents, repair requests and services provided. This should include details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
  3. The resident said the landlord told him at the inspection it would remove the tank. The landlord’s repair logs do not include notes on the outcomes of jobs attended. This is inappropriate and means we cannot determine whether this is correct.
  4. The landlord is not obligated to remove redundant water tanks from properties, provided they are safe and not causing issues such as damp, leaks, pest access, or other repair issues. However, the lack of notes means it is not clear whether the landlord was satisfied none of these issues were present.
  5. The resident made his stage 1 complaint A on 2 December 2023 and the landlord responded on 16 January 2024. The response said that the tank was safe and not in need of repair. However, it did not address the resident’s comment about the space housing it being in an unfinished state and in need of plastering. Neither did it address the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s operative had told him it would remove the tank. This was inappropriate.
  6. The response said the resident could write to the council to apply for permission to remove the tank at his own cost. It did not specify which department or what information he would need to provide in the request. It would have been reasonable to provide further information on this process.
  7. The resident made complaint B on 27 March 2024 and the landlord responded on 16 April 2024. It failed again to address the resident’s comment about plastering, despite him raising it again. This was inappropriate.
  8. The resident escalated complaint B to stage 2 on 7 May 2024 and the landlord responded on 31 July 2024. The response said the landlord had inspected areas that may need plastering. It is positive that it carried out a further inspection. However, this visit was missing from the repair log which is another instance of poor record keeping.
  9. The landlord’s repairs policy says that where work cannot be completed in a single visit it will proactively schedule follow up appointments and keep the resident informed. The response said that the operative had not had enough time to complete the work as well as the inspection. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up with the resident to make a further appointment until the stage 2 response, almost 7 weeks later. This was inappropriate.
  10. In summary, while the landlord was not obligated to remove the water tank, there were shortcomings in the way it handled the request:
    1. The initial inspection was 5 calendar days overdue.
    2. The stage 1 responses did not address the resident’s comments about the area being unfinished and in need of plastering. Neither response addressed the resident’s comment about hygiene in the area.
    3. There was a delay completing plastering work. The landlord said it completed it on 12 August 2024, although we have not seen evidence of this.
    4. It is unclear whether the landlord assessed mould and hygiene around the tank.
  11. For these reasons we have made a finding of service failure, which is a lower level of maladministration. We consider this to be an appropriate finding as while there were failures, there is no evidence to indicate they affected the overall outcome for the resident.
  12. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right including an order that it pay the resident £100 compensation. This is the amount recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures.

Reports of a broken extractor fan, damp, and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will log and order repairs promptly and that it seeks to offer residents an appointment at the first point of contact. When the resident reported mould on 16 October 2023 the landlord responded and asked him to send photos, which he did. However, it did not get back to the resident with an appointment, even after he chased the landlord twice. This was not appropriate.
  2. The landlord should have addressed the issue within 20 working days, in line with the repairs policy. However, it was more than 3 weeks past this timeframe by the time it completed the mould wash.
  3. The Ombudsman’s 2021 Spotlight report on damp and mould, ‘It’s not lifestyle’ (the Spotlight report) sets out what we expect from landlords when responding to damp and mould reports. This includes the expectation that landlords take a proactive rather than reactive approach to damp and mould and sets out the importance of early diagnosis. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the cause of the bathroom mould. This would have been reasonable to establish whether it was likely the issue would return and whether further action needed to be taken.
  4. On 11 January 2024 the resident reported that the bathroom extractor fan was not working. The landlord inspected on 13 February 2024 which was 5 days past the appropriate timeframe. It could not resolve the issue as it needed a specialist contractor to attend. The landlord did not arrange a follow up visit or make any further contact with the resident about it. This was inappropriate.
  5. The resident complained on 27 March 2024 and the landlord responded on 16 April 2024. The landlord did not apologise for, or even acknowledge, there had been a delay repairing the fan, which was inappropriate.
  6. The response said a specialist contractor had attended that same day and submitted a quote to the landlord. This was more than 2 months after the landlord’s initial visit, an unreasonable timeframe. There is also no record of this in the landlord’s repair log, another instance of poor record keeping.
  7. The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 7 May 2024. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider an amount:
    1. Up to £50 for service failures where the impact is no greater than a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept.
    2. £51 and £250 for service failures which cause a level of inconvenience and/or distress that exceeds what a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept.
  8. The landlord responded on 31 July 2024, apologised, and offered the resident £75 compensation to acknowledge the delays resolving the fan, damp and mould, and leaks. We consider the landlord to have offered £25 for each of these 3 issues. Considering the fan repair was more than 6 months overdue, we do not consider this to be a reasonable offer. An amount within the £51 to £250 range would have been more appropriate.
  9. The response said the resident could claim on his own contents insurance or the landlord’s insurance for damaged belongings. This was appropriate advice, however, the landlord should have given it in the stage 1 response when the resident initially raised the issue.
  10. The stage 2 response said the landlord would inspect damp and mould on 5 August 2024. It is unclear why this did not go ahead. Evidence suggests that the landlord carried out damp and mould treatment on 12 February 2025 but it still has not repaired the bathroom fan.
  11. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. The landlord acknowledged failures in the stage 2 response but did not offer an appropriate amount of compensation to put things right. This has led us to a finding of maladministration.
  12. The landlord was not responsive to the resident’s initial report and he had to chase an appointment, which was then more than 3 weeks overdue. The fan inspection was 5 days overdue and could not be completed in a single visit. The landlord was not proactive in arranging further visits and did not acknowledge this in its stage 1 response. While it apologised for the delays at stage 2, it took 6 months from then for the landlord to treat damp and mould and the fan has still not been repaired to date, nearly 18 months after the resident first reported it.
  13. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken extractor fan, damp, and mould We have made orders for the landlord to put things right including an order that it pay the resident £600 compensation. This is the amount recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration with an adverse non-permanent impact.

Reports of leaks

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to urgent repair requests within 3 working days. We would consider a leak to be an urgent repair. The landlord attended the same day as the resident’s initial report on 18 March 2024, which was appropriate.
  2. The landlord was unable to resolve the leak that day as it could not access the upstairs flat. The landlord’s damp, mould, and leaks policy says that when it is unable to immediately resolve the issue it will continue to communicate with the resident and may offer an alternative solution, advice, or support to limit the impact in the interim.
  3. The landlord asked the resident on 20 March 2024 for his availability but did not make any further contact despite the resident chasing and reporting a new leak on 21 March 2024. Although it accessed the upstairs flat and turned off pipework on 25 March 2025, there is no evidence that it informed the resident it had done so. The landlord should have kept the resident updated as required by its policy and also checked with him to see if the leak had stopped.
  4. In his emails to the landlord the resident also asked the landlord to transfer him to a new property. The landlord was not obligated to do so but it should have responded to the request.
  5. The resident complained on 27 March 2024 and the landlord responded on 16 April 2024. The response said that the landlord did not know the upstairs flat door number so it was unable to investigate further at that stage. It said the resident should contact the landlord if the leak was ongoing and provide the door number.
  6. This was inappropriate. If the landlord was unable to establish the door number from its own records, it should have attended the property to establish this. It was not reasonable to say it could not investigate any further until the resident provided it. It should have kept adequate records so this would not have been an issue.
  7. The landlord said it resolved the leak in May 2025. The repair log indicates an appointment was made for 1 May 2025 but it is not clear if it was attended and what the outcome was.
  8. The resident escalated their complaint  to stage 2 on 7 May 2024 and the landlord responded on 31 July 2024. It apologised and offered £25 compensation. Internal emails suggest the leak was still active up until July 2024. An amount within the £51 to £250 range would have been more appropriate, considering the leak repair would have been around 2 months overdue.
  9. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  10. The compensation offered at stage 2 was not adequate to reflect the distress and inconvenience the resident likely suffered. As such we have made a finding of maladministration. The landlord did not communicate with the resident effectively about the leak. We acknowledge that legal issues may have impacted the landlord’s ability to resolve the matter. However, it should have kept the resident updated and considered what steps it could take in the interim to help manage the issue.
  11. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right including an order that it pay the resident an additional £200 compensation. This is the recommended range in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration with an adverse, non-permanent impact.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days.
    2. Acknowledge stage 2 complaints and respond within 20 working days of escalation.
    3. Notify residents of any delays and seek to agree a new deadline.
    4. Address all points of a complaint in the response.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 2 December 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint. It responded on 16 January 2024 which was more than a month past the 10 working day timeframe. There is no evidence the landlord informed the resident of the delay or sought to agree a new timeframe. The response did not address all points of the resident’s complaint, as mentioned in paragraph 19. This was inappropriate.
  3. The resident made another complaint on 27 March 2024 about the water tank, leaks, the bathroom fan, damp and mould. The landlord logged this as a new stage 1 complaint. While the resident had raised some new issues, the landlord should have logged a separate stage 2 complaint for the water tank issue. Failing to do so meant the issue was considered twice at stage 1 and then once at stage 2, effectively adding an extra stage to the complaints process.
  4. The landlord acknowledged this complaint after 4 working days, which was positive. It responded on 16 April 2024, which was 3 days late, a minor delay. The response failed to address the resident’s damaged belongings.
  5. The resident escalated complaint B to stage 2 on 7 May 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it within 5 working days. However, the response on 31 July 2024 was 8 weeks past the appropriate timeframe. Again, the landlord did not notify the resident of a delay or seek to agree a new deadline, which was inappropriate.
  6. The delayed complaint responses and failure to address all issues have led us to make a finding of maladministration. When landlords fail to provide timely responses, it exacerbates the resident’s frustration and causes loss of trust in the landlord. It also delays them being able to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman.
  7. To acknowledge this the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation. This is the recommended amount in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaint handling failures.

Review of policies and practice

  1. In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record keeping which are similar to those identified in case 202124577. We have not, however, made any further orders for the landlord to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577 which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
  2. Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows the Ombudsman to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the outcome and action needed following the completion of the investigation

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
    1. There was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the landlord to remove a redundant water tank.
    2. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken extractor fan, damp, and mould.
    3. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
    4. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders: 
    1. Within 4 weeks:
      1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and be in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
      2. Pay the resident £1000 compensation broken down as:

(1)  £100 in relation to the redundant water tank.

(2)  £600 in relation to the broken extractor fan, damp, and mould.

(3)  £200 in relation to the leak.

(4)  £100 in relation to complaint handling.

  1. Carry out an inspection to determine whether the root cause of leaks has been permanently resolved. This should include inspecting the upstairs flat if necessary. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the report and recommended actions.
  2. Provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the report from when it inspected the water tank. This is to demonstrate that the tank does not present a risk of damp, leaks, pest access, or other repair issues. If no report is available or if the report does not confirm this the landlord should carry out a new inspection and provide the report.
  1. Within 8 weeks:
    1. Carry out any recommended actions from the inspections.