Lewisham Council (202309875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309875

Lewisham Council

30 August 2024

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:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reports of responsive repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Record-keeping.
2. The handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 1 January 2018. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord said its systems showed the resident’s child had a critical illness. The resident told the Ombudsman that one of her children suffers from a life-threatening brain tumour, the second child had a chromosome disorder and is non-verbal and the third child has anxiety and sensory conditions.
On 10 January 2022, the resident reported damp and mould was spreading within her property. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property in February 2022 and produced a schedule of works for the damp and mould. The landlord said it completed the works in July 2022. The resident said the damp and mould returned immediately.
Between October 2022 and November 2022, the resident continued to report damp and mould in her property. In December 2022, the landlord’s contractor carried out a separate set of works in the kitchen and agreed to hack off and re-render a damp wall in the kitchen.
In late December 2022, the resident reported that the damp was getting worse and the wall in the kitchen was not drying after it had been re-rendered. The resident said the landlord fitted a french drain in January 2023, to help the kitchen dry so it could be replastered and redecorated.
The landlord later arranged to visit the property in February 2023 to inspect the damp and mould. As a result, the landlord re-raised the schedule of works from its inspection in February 2022 and inspected the cavity of the brick wall in March 2023. In April 2023, the landlord attended to insert 3 air bricks to ventilate the property.
On 31 May 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. she felt let down by the landlord because it had failed to rectify the ongoing damp and mould issues she reported in January 2022.
2. the landlord’s communications had been consistently poor and when she chased the repairs she was often ignored. This included failing to notify her of appointments in advance.
3. the landlord had failed to consider the disruption of multiple tradesmen in the home on family life and her children’s vulnerabilities. This included living with a cold unusable kitchen over Christmas time because the landlord removed the radiator and the kitchen wall had not dried.
4. her floorboards, door frames, walls, bath side panels and the plug socket attached to the wall had been damaged by the tradesmen that had entered the property.
5. she wanted for all the repair issues to be reviewed and resolved promptly.
On 20 June 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint because:
1. an operative had attended the property in June 2023 and had to leave as the resident was rude towards him.
2. this had contributed to the delays because they were the only operative that could conduct the works and it would not resend the same operative following this type of incident.
3. it had already explained to the resident the damp works would not be a “quick fix” and it would contact her within 10 working days to schedule the completion of the works.
On 20 July 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 because:
1. she said the landlord’s communications had been poor, and she felt this was discrimination.
2. the external kitchen wall needed repointing and the landlord had not rendered the internal kitchen wall properly.
3. she asked if she could commission a private contractor to complete the works and for the landlord to reimburse her costs.
On 23 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint because:
1. it took its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 seriously and apologised the resident felt discriminated against.
2. it said it had raised a job for the repointing on 7 September 2023, and that the delay in completing this was due to the resident’s behaviour.
3. it had no record of rendering the internal kitchen wall and asked if the resident needed to report a new repair.
4. it confirmed it would not allow a private contractor to conduct works to its properties.
On 28 August 2023, the resident escalated her complaint because:
1. the repairs were still outstanding.
2. she said she did not abuse the operative in June 2023.
3. the landlord had failed to resolve the damp after 3 further inspections.
4. the landlord had also agreed and failed to hang 2 internal doors, repair the pipe on the balcony and remove the building waste in the garden.
The landlord issued a stage 3 response from its independent adjudicator on 21 November 2023. This upheld the resident’s complaint because of its poor and delayed handling of repairs and the complaint. It recommended the landlord:
1. apologise to the resident.
2. offer £500 for the impact of its failures.
3. complete a full investigation to identify the causes of the damp and mould, establish the works and provide the resident with a copy of its inspection and a schedule of works with indicative timescales.
4. ensure it considers how it mitigated the disruption to the resident’s family life while undertaking the identified repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident explained that the property had been in a poor condition when she moved in. She explained that prior to her report in January 2022, she had been living with damp and mould.
Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme states:
“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.”
The Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with their landlords within 12 months of issues arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider issues while they are still ‘live,’ and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
This investigation will therefore focus on the resident’s reports of damp and mould from January 2022 onwards, which was considered as part of the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s record-keeping

The Ombudsman notes:
1. the landlord failed to provide adequate repair records to account for when it attended the resident’s property and what it did during the appointments.
2. the repair records it did provide did not have information about all the repairs and surveys the landlord agreed to including:
  1. dates.
  2. the associated appointments it made for these including dates.
  3. what happened during the appointments.
  4. the details of the follow-up work required.
3. the landlord failed to provide adequate records of the repairs journey, because it failed to provide some of the important communications it had with the resident when she was chasing the repairs. The resident provided these records to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs, complaint handling, and communications with residents. Clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ abilities to identify, determine liability for, and respond to problems when they arise.
As the Ombudsman has not received the necessary detail in these records, we have been unable to provide a view on various events that occurred during the period of the complaint. The Ombudsman considers this to be fatal to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was maladministration by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

Damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s approach to damp and mould can be found in our Spotlight Report on ‘Damp and mould – it’s not a lifestyle.’ This refers to a zero-tolerance approach to cases of damp and mould.
On 10 January 2022, the resident reported that there was damp and mould spreading inside her property. The pictures shown to the Ombudsman indicate moderate damp and mould in the property. The resident said the landlord attended the property in February 2022 and conducted a survey. She said the landlord had agreed to follow up on works to resolve the damp and mould to the kitchen wall, bathroom and to investigate a leak coming through to the toilet ceiling.
The landlord’s repair records indicate an inspection was raised but later abandoned. Further, the records show “follow on works” were raised “as per email [to the contractor].” The status of the works was noted as “abandoned.”
The landlord’s repair records did not include:
1. when the landlord’s inspection took place in February 2022 or its findings.
2. details of the follow-on works required at the property to remedy the damp and mould.
3. why the repair logs note the status of the inspection and follow on works as abandoned.
The Ombudsman expects landlords’ repair records to contain basic information relating to the findings of its inspections and the works raised as a result. The Ombudsman cannot assess whether the landlord acted reasonably when responding to the resident’s initial report in January 2022. This was not appropriate and was a failure in the landlord’s record-keeping. The landlord is at fault for this.
In July 2022, the resident said a contractor attended the property to deal with the works related to the inspection in February 2022. This was 6 months after the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property. The resident told the Ombudsman the works only dealt with cosmetic issues and the damp and mould returned immediately. The landlord’s repair logs do not refer to an appointment in July 2022. However, later correspondence between the landlord and its contractor substantiated that the contractor attended the property in June 2022 for “damp works.”
The landlord unreasonably delayed in conducting a follow-up appointment in July 2022. The landlord’s response was not in line with its repairs policy which gives a 3 working day turnaround for urgent repairs such as damp and mould where there may be a health and safety risk to residents.
There is no evidence that the landlord communicated its delay in taking further action to address the damp and mould in the property. This was in conflict with the landlord’s damp and mould policy which states it will communicate with residents and keep them informed of any actions it is taking, why it is taking them and when they will. There is also no evidence the landlord considered any short-term measures to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould on the resident between January and July 2022, such as applying mould washes or supplying a dehumidifier. This was unreasonable, given the vulnerabilities within the household.
This culmination of failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience and impacted her enjoyment of the property because she was living in a property with damp and mould.
Between July 2022 and December 2022, the resident and the contractor notified the landlord that the damp and mould had returned to the property. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the remedial works undertaken in July 2022 were ineffective at preventing damp and mould in the property.
There is evidence to suggest an inspection took place in the property in October 2022. However, the landlord’s repair records did not reflect this inspection. This was further evidence of poor record-keeping.
The landlord’s communications with its contractor in November 2022 indicated it was unsure of which works it referred to the contractor with respect to the condition of the property. This was evidence of the landlord’s failure to maintain oversight or to monitor the repairs to the resident’s property. The landlord’s repair records ought to have been detailed enough so that it knew which works had been raised and were outstanding at the property.
During December 2022, the resident said the landlord was conducting a separate set of works unrelated to damp and mould. She explained the contractor agreed to hack off and re-render the kitchen wall because of damp. The landlord’s repair records did not reflect this. The resident later raised concerns that the rendering was not drying in the kitchen and continued to do so. She explained that this had ruined Christmas because the room was cold and unusable as a radiator had been removed for the work to be completed. The landlord said in its stage 2 response it had no record of having rendered the internal kitchen wall and asked the resident to report this as a new repair issue.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord is responsible for the acts of its third-party contractors. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord’s repair records and/or correspondence to have reflected the rendering to the kitchen wall. This was further evidence of poor record keeping which prevented the landlord from properly monitoring the repairs at the property in connection with damp and mould. This undermined the landlord and tenant relationship because the resident felt the landlord was unable to manage the repairs effectively.
The resident asked the landlord on numerous occasions between December 2022 and February 2023 to act on the damp and mould issues. The evidence indicated the landlord arranged for an inspection on 21 February 2023. This was 13 months after the resident’s initial report. Further, the repair logs did not reflect this visit. However, the repair logs do show that the “follow-on works” originally logged in February 2022 were re-raised. There were no further details about the landlord’s findings, or which works it deemed necessary following the visit. This was evidence of poor record-keeping combined with a significantly delayed response to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s communication records indicate a further inspection took place on 23 March 2023. The repair records do not reflect this inspection, any findings, or subsequent remedial works. This was poor record-keeping.
On or around 29 March 2023, the landlord raised a job for a bricklayer to remove some brick to inspect the cavity of the external kitchen wall. In May 2023, the landlord raised a job for its contractor to remove the paint from the brickwork as it was thought to be trapping moisture against the bricks and causing “issues” inside the property. Again, the repair records contained no information about when this took place. However, the notes attached to the repair log indicated that the brickwork required repointing.
On 4 April 2023, the resident explained there was a further inspection and the landlord inserted 3 air bricks. The repair records do not reflect this, and this was poor record keeping. This event was corroborated by the landlord’s stage 3 investigation. Given the resident reported concerns 15 months prior, this was a significant and unreasonable delay by the landlord to take further action to resolve the damp and mould. There is no evidence that during the delays the landlord fairly considered the impact on the household given their vulnerabilities or how they could have been more adversely affected when compared to a household without those vulnerabilities. This is not acceptable.
The landlord’s stage 3 response referred to an appointment on 11 April 2023, where the landlord investigated the leak affecting the toilet ceiling. The operative explained that the roof slate at the front of the house needed to be replaced but this required scaffolding. There is no further evidence the landlord acted on this repair. This is evidence of poor record-keeping.
The landlord’s stage 1 response referred to an appointment in June 2023 where an operative had attended to do the repointing to the external brickwork. The landlord said the operative left the property because the resident had been rude. It also suggested, during its stage 2 response, that the landlord’s delay in completing the damp and mould works was due to the resident’s unreasonable behaviour at this appointment. It said this is because the operative was the only one with the skills to do the job at that time and it would not send the same operative given the concerns raised. The landlord said it had been recruiting more staff to prevent this in future.
The resident contested this and explained that the appointment was made at short notice and conflicted with a hospital appointment for her unwell child. The resident said she had planned at short notice to ensure the landlord’s access to the property. She explained the operative had been rude, came unprepared with the materials to do the work and later refused to conduct the work.
The Ombudsman is not able to say what happened at the appointment. There is no evidence the landlord gave the resident an opportunity to give her version of events. Instead, it appears it took the contractor’s account over the residents and on that basis the repairs were delayed. There is no evidence the landlord considered other options such as sending the contractor with another member of the landlord’s staff. Given the vulnerabilities of the household, and the delays already experienced by the resident, the landlord did not handle this appropriately in the circumstances.
There is evidence of the landlord’s repairs team being asked to contact the resident with updates and to book outstanding works between July 2023 and August 2023. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had raised a job to have the external brickwork repointed in September 2023. The resident explained she heard nothing from the landlord and began chasing it again to complete the work. This was inappropriate because the landlord should have ensured it would do what it said it would do or explained its delays to the resident and provided a new timeframe for completion. This caused the resident considerable time and trouble chasing repairs that the landlord had failed to action.
After concluding its stage 3 response in November 2023, it was recommended that the landlord conduct a full investigation into the damp and mould to establish the works to resolve this. It took a further 4 months to inspect the property on 1 March 2024. This was 2 years and 3 months after the resident’s initial report which was a significant and unacceptable delay.
On 1 March 2024, the landlord’s inspection recommended the following works internally:
1. install trickle vents to the bay window in the kitchen.
2. overhaul the front door to mitigate the binding.
3. repair the crack in the living room ceiling and redecorate.
4. replace the ground floor hallway light switch.
5. reposition the radiator below the rear elevation window to the flank wall on the left-hand side of the window.
6. skim and sand the cement to render the kitchen wall.
7. repaint 3 kitchen walls and the ceiling.
8. level the floor to the dining area.
9. patch repair on the former hearth perimeter of the floor.
10. overhaul the kitchen sliding sash window to mitigate rattling and provide a locking key.
11. investigate condensation on the copper pipes passing through from the bathroom on the first floor.
12. apply lagging in the loft, replace the cistern siphon, apply stain block to the affected area, and redecorate it after the condensation was resolved.
13. regrout the splash back tile course in the bathroom.
14. install a humidistat extractor fan in the bathroom.
15. replace the bath shower mixer tap.
The inspection recommended the following external works:
1. repointing the external brickwork.
2. excavation of the shingle soak away and supply and install a drain positioned below the rear relevant ground floor window.
3. patch repair to the internal wall section below the window stain block and redecorate the patch.
4. stabilise the gulley and its connection to the downpipe on the Juliet balcony.
The resident chased the landlord on 11 March 2024 and asked for the findings of the surveyor and a start date for the works. The landlord provided a schedule of work on 12 March 2024. However, this did not contain the full list of works reflected in the landlord’s inspection report. When the resident contested the list of works, the landlord did not confirm its position on the scope of the works. This was despite the inspection report containing all the recommendations the resident had explained were missing. The resident spent considerable time and trouble over the next 2 months chasing an updated schedule of work and a start date for them. The evidence shows that an updated list was not provided by the landlord.
The Ombudsman considers that this was an easily resolved issue that the landlord failed to address. The landlord ought to have been in a position to have explained clearly to the resident what it intended to do and when. This indicates staff were unable to access important repair information to respond to the resident’s queries. This caused the resident “deep frustration, upset and stress” and she explained that this meant she lost confidence in the landlord because the process had been “extremely exhausting.”
In April 2024, the landlord said it would refer the resident’s matter to a director to be reviewed, there is no evidence the landlord did this. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate the landlord intended to take responsibility and learning for the delays, action the repairs, and try to rebuild the landlord and tenant relationship.
The resident told the Ombudsman that between June 2024 and August 2024, the landlord completed the majority of the repairs. This was 32 months after the resident’s initial report. She said the following issues were outstanding:
1. the investigation of the leak in the toilet including the installation of a radiator to help with condensation.
2. the installation of air bricks to ventilate the property.
3. although the kitchen flooring had been levelled by the landlord the works had been substandard. This meant the resident was unable to lay the flooring.
4. the front door remained insecure after the landlord had adjusted the hinges.
Again, the landlord did not provide evidence of which works it had completed or when which was poor record keeping. The resident said that to get to this point, she had spent considerable time and effort liaising with the contractor and the landlord. She explained the contractor recommended further remedial action to resolve the damp and mould, but the landlord did not want to conduct the work.
The resident said that she felt “exasperated” by the repair process and that although some works were outstanding, she did not want her home to be disrupted further. She said she wanted a private contractor to conduct the outstanding works to prevent delays, disruption to her family and further contact between parties. She explained that as the weather was warm, she was unsure whether the works had made a lasting repair to the damp and mould. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident, the landlord retains the right to decide which contractors it allows to complete repairs in its property.
Nonetheless, the Ombudsman considers there were significant service failures in the landlord’s approach to the damp and mould. This was severe maladministration because:
1. the landlord unreasonably delayed identifying the full repairs and mitigations to the damp and mould in a meaningful way.
2. the landlord unreasonably delayed in carrying out remedial works to the property because it took in excess of 2 years and 8 months to complete them.
3. the landlord consistently missed opportunities to monitor and action the resident’s reports with its contractor.
4. the landlord consistently failed to communicate what it intended to do and when between February 2022 and March 2024.
5. the landlord failed to communicate any of its delays or to provide revised timeframes to the resident for the completion of works.
6. the landlord failed to consider how it could mitigate its delays on the resident and her household.
7. the landlord failed to consider the vulnerabilities of the household in its approach to the repairs in the resident’s home.
The resident explained that this had a serious and detrimental impact on her and her family, because the damp and mould issues remained unresolved for an excessive period. The landlord spent a disproportionate amount of time to resolve the issues given the nature of the repairs raised in March 2024. This impacted the resident’s enjoyment of the property and her trust in the landlord. In addition, the landlord’s overall handling of the repair appointments showed a disregard for the vulnerabilities of the household. As such it missed opportunities to explore how it could work with the resident to complete the repairs in a timely manner and repair the relationship by trying to mitigate its delays.
In this case, the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies indicates that where there has been a significant impact on a resident, the level of compensation should be significant at £1,000+. On considering what went wrong and the impact on the resident the Ombudsman has concluded that £3,250 compensation would be reasonable to recognise:
1. the distress and inconvenience, as well as loss of enjoyment of the home from January 2022.
2. the time and trouble of having to chase repairs over an extended period.
3. the failure to consider the impact and vulnerabilities of the household.

Responsive repairs

The resident explained that during the landlord’s inspections between March 2023 and April 2023, the landlord agreed to carry out the following repairs:
1. hanging two internal doors the resident purchased.
2. removing building waste left in the garden.
There is no evidence the landlord agreed to hang the internal doors the resident purchased. While the Ombudsman has concerns over the record-keeping in this case, the investigation has been unable to find any evidence that hanging the internal doors was related to a repair the landlord was responsible for. As any agreement by the landlord to carry out this work is likely to be in excess of its repair responsibilities, the Ombudsman is unable to find fault with this element of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord is responsible for removing any waste related to the repairs it is completing. The resident explained she had to pay for the building waste to be removed. The repair records do not evidence the resident’s reports of the building waste or that the landlord removed it. As a result of poor record keeping the Ombudsman has been unable to determine the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances. This was a service failure.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) (2022) states that landlords should respond to complaints as follows:
1. stage 1 within 10 working days of the date the complaint was logged.
2. stage 2 within 20 working days of the request to escalate.
3. stage 3 within 20 working days of the request to escalate.
The landlord responded within 12 working days to respond at stage 1. Although this was not compliant with the Code, this would have had a minimal impact on the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said that there had been delays in addressing the damp and mould at the resident’s property due to an appointment, as the resident was rude to an operative. The Ombudsman considers that the investigation into the complaint ought to have been aware the damp and mould had been outstanding for 18 months at this stage. The Ombudsman considers the landlord was heavy-handed in its response because it placed a disproportionate amount of blame on the resident for an abandoned appointment in June 2023 and did not fairly consider all the events from the time the resident made her original report.
In addition, the response did not cover:
1. the reasons for the delays that had occurred between January 2022 and June 2023.
2. the lack of communication by the landlord about what it intended to do and when.
3. the damage to the resident’s front door, floorboards, door frames, wall, and a chipped bath panel.
The landlord did not comply with the Code which states landlords must answer all elements of resident’s complaints. Further, the landlord missed an opportunity to be clear about which works it had already undertaken, the works it considered to be outstanding, and when it would carry these out.
The landlord responded within 24 working days at stage 2. Again, this is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident.
The landlord operated a 3-stage complaint procedure in this case. The Code states that complaint processes should not be unduly long. It is noted that the landlord operates a 2-stage procedure in its current complaints policy which is positive to note.
The stage 3 response was issued within 61 working days of the resident’s escalation request. This was not compliant with the Code which states that additional time to respond is only justified if related to convening a panel, which was not the case in this complaint. This impacted the resident because this delayed her from seeking recourse from the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s stage 3 response concluded the landlord had failed to effectively address the damp and mould in a reasonable time, communicate clearly about the repairs and that its complaint handling was poor and unfair. The Ombudsman considers this was a fair assessment of the resident’s complaint, however, it did not address the damage the resident reported to her property. This was a further failure because the landlord failed to answer all elements of the resident’s complaint.
Whilst the Independent Adjudicator’s assessment to inspect and determine the works was reasonable, there is no reason why this remedy could not have been arrived at during stage 1 or 2 of the complaint procedure.
Although the landlord said it had provided an answer to the rendering of the internal kitchen wall that had not dried out, it did not recognise or acknowledge this was a repair already conducted by its contractor. It told the resident to report this issue as a new repair issue. This was a failure because the landlord did not thoroughly investigate this issue. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have spoken with its contractors to confirm what had been done to the property as part of the scope of work.
The complaints process noted:
1. at stage 1 the damp and mould “was not a quick fix”.
2. at stage 2 it had raised a job to repointing the external wall.
3. at stage 3 response the landlord needed to complete an investigation into the causes of damp and mould.
Given the delays in completing the repointing (9 months from the stage 3 response) and arranging the survey (4 months from the stage 3 response), there is no evidence the complaints procedure actioned or monitored the completion of the actions the landlord had promised to carry out. This was not compliant with the Code which requires landlords to track and action outstanding actions expeditiously.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that during March 2024 and June 2024 the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates regarding the scope of work and the start date for work. The complaint handler told the resident it had passed her concerns to the repairs team or that it would respond when it had an update. However, it consistently failed to do this which was a failure to comply with the Code because it did not provide regular updates to the resident. The resident said she felt exhausted by the constant need to chase the repairs and the complaint departments. This was unacceptable.
In addition, the landlord agreed to pay the resident £500 for the “impact of its faults” at stage 3. However, it took the landlord 9 months to pay the resident this compensation which was an unreasonable delay in trying to put things right.
Although the landlord came to a reasoned conclusion during this stage of its complaints process, the Ombudsman considers the landlord delayed in carrying out all the recommendations made at stage 3. This continued to undermine the landlord and tenant relationship because the resident felt the complaints process failed to change anything and, on the whole, reflected the unreasonable behaviours demonstrated through the repairs process such as ineffective communication, continued delays, and lack of clarity on what the landlord intended to do and when.
As a result, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of £500 was not proportionate to the severity of the failures found in its stage 3 response or the period the failures were ongoing. In addition, the landlord failed to show what it had learnt from the complaint and how it could use this insight to improve its service provision for other residents.
For these reasons, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of responsive repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record-keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. arrange for its Chief Executive Officer to telephone the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report. It must also issue its apology in writing.
2. pay the resident £3,500 compensation comprised of:
  1. £3,250 compensation for the impact of the failures set out at paragraphs 54-56 above.
  2. £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling.
  3. this is in addition to the landlord’s offer of compensation during the complaint procedure. The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.
3. upon submission of receipts from the resident, the landlord must reimburse any costs incurred by the resident in removing the landlord’s building waste from the property.
4. assess the resident’s request for compensation concerning the alleged damage to the resident’s front door, floorboards, door frames, wall, and a chipped bath panel. It must write to the resident and the Ombudsman with its decision.
5. the landlord must complete a post-inspection survey of the property to ensure all the recommendations of its surveyor in March 2024 have been carried out to resolve the damp and mould. The survey report must include:
  1. its findings, including comments on the standard of the work conducted.
  2. a schedule or works with indicative timescales, if applicable.
  3. if it considers any of the recommendations are no longer required and why, if applicable.
6. a copy of the survey must be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman within 5 days of the inspection.
7. it must use its best endeavours to complete any outstanding repairs within 56 days of the date of the post-inspection survey. If there are any delays it must write to the resident and the Ombudsman with the reasons for the delay and ensure this contains further timeframes for completion of the work.
8. before starting any work, the landlord must contact the resident to assess how it can carry out the repairs while mitigating any disruption to the resident and her household. The landlord must write to the resident and the Ombudsman to confirm any measures that have been agreed upon between the parties.
Within 56 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must conduct a senior management case review in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme to identify:
1. why it failed to consider the vulnerabilities of the household in its approach to repairs.
2. why it failed to consider how it could mitigate the property conditions during its delays.
3. why the remedial works carried out in July 2022 were not effective in resolving the damp and mould.
4. why it failed to respond to the resident’s numerous requests to investigate and action repairs to the damp and mould.
5. why it failed to identify the delays present during stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaint procedure.
6. why it was unclear which repairs it had raised to its contractor in relation to the damp and mould, specifically, the rendering of the internal kitchen wall. This must include an investigation into any discrepancies between the findings of its surveys and the works raised to contractors.
7. why the complaints procedure did not effectively manage the outstanding repairs or provide regular updates to the resident.
8. why it failed to evidence it had progressed the matter to a director in April 2024.
9. how it can prevent these issues from occurring in future.
10. the landlord must share its findings with the resident and the Ombudsman. This must include any wider learning it has identified for its service provision and the associated timeframes in implementing this.
In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its record-keeping – similar to that 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. Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into Lewisham Council. 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.