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

Lewisham Council (202233750)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233750

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Reports of repairs to the staircase.
    3. Reports of water ingress in the kitchen.
    4. Reports about a neighbour leaving waste in the communal walkway.
    5. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in the property, a 4–bedroom house, with her family.
  2. The resident has anxiety and depression. Her son has severe eczema, asthma, and allergies; her daughter has allergies and is undergoing investigation for complex medical issues.
  3. On 8 February 2022 the landlord inspected the resident’s staircase, and a contractor attended to carry out repairs on 31 March 2022.
  4. The landlord inspected damp and mould in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom on 21 February 2022 and 18 May 2022 and identified that ivy on the external wall needed to be cut down, the brickwork waterproofed, and a mould treatment wash carried out in the bedroom.
  5. On 3 August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that repairs to the staircase, and works to address damp and mould, had not been completed. She said the landlord had not responded to her communication about these matters. She wanted promised repairs to be carried out and a chest of drawers that had been damaged by mould to be replaced.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 18 August 2022 apologised, promised a further inspection of the damp and mould, further works to the staircase, removal of ivy related to the damp and mould, and offered £50 compensation for the chest of drawers. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and requested escalation to stage 2. She explained that she was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports of water ingress in the kitchen, issues with the front and back door, and 2 “blown” double glazing windowpanes.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 12 November 2022 incorporated the water ingress but not the door or window issues. The landlord also incorporated 2 further items: electrical issues and a complaint about a neighbour leaving waste in the communal walkway. It apologised, said that the resident would be contacted directly by its contractors, damp and mould team, repairs team, “leak operatives,” and “green services” team to arrange further works and inspections. £100 compensation was offered for damaged belongings. The landlord said it had spoken to the neighbour and asked them to remove the waste and would check that this had been done. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and requested escalation to stage 3.
  8. The stage 3 response on 28 March 2023 said that the landlord would carry out a detailed inspection of the causes of damp, leaks and mould within 2 weeks, would provide a schedule of works, and carry these out as soon as possible afterwards. The resident was directed to make a claim to the landlord’s insurers for damaged belongings, and £500 compensation was offered for “avoidable stress, frustration, and exposure to harm.”
  9. The resident requested investigation by the Ombudsman on 3 April 2023. She wanted the landlord to carry out repairs to remedy the issues complained about, re-decorate or provide funds to redecorate the bedroom, and make an increased offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. When a complaint is referred to the Ombudsman, we must consider what is fair in all the circumstances. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Therefore, in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the determination will not consider the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front and back doors, and the fusebox, as these matters have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. These issues can be progressed as a new formal complaint with the landlord if required.
  2. We must also consider whether the matters should have been escalated to our Service at an earlier stage to receive a determination. This is to ensure that events can be clearly recalled, and that appropriate evidence will still be available to support the investigation. Therefore, although the evidence from the landlord shows reports of damp and mould going back to at least 2010, and reports of water ingress in the kitchen going back to at least 2016, in line with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme current at the time, the determination will only consider matters occurring in the 6 months prior to the formal complaint being raised. Any reference to events prior to 6 months before the stage 1 complaint was made, or after the stage 2 response was issued, is made for contextual purposes only.
  3. The resident has reported that both her children and she have health problems (as above), that she was concerned about the safety of breathing in mould spores, and that her children had sore throats, infections and coughs. She also mentioned that the situation had impacted her mental health. This Service has investigated how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Damp and mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LLTA) implies a term into the tenancy agreement making the landlord responsible for remedying disrepair to the structure and exterior of the property, and the installations for the provision of gas and electricity, heating and hot water, and water and sanitation, within a reasonable period of it being reported. Section 9A LLTA creates an implied term for landlords to remedy damp and mould where these cause health and safety issues, such that the property is not reasonably suited for human occupation.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy provides that emergency repairs will be completed in 24 hours, urgent work in 3 working days and routine work in 20 days. The policy states that if follow-on works are needed these will be arranged promptly. If work cannot be completed in a single visit or within target timeframes the tenant will be kept updated.
  3. The landlord’s damp, mould and leaks policy states that it will treat all reports seriously. It will ask key questions to determine the cause and understand the level of risk, and then take remedial action to solve the problem. It will communicate clearly with the resident and when it is unable to take immediate action to fully resolve the issue it may offer an interim solution or advice and support to limit the impact on the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) highlights the need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions; ensure their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue; act proactively, rather than re-actively; review the number of missed appointments and consider steps to reduce them; and clearly and regularly communicate with residents about actions to resolve reports of damp and mould. The Spotlight report also states that landlords should share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
  5. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to make an independent, technical assessment of the damp and mould reported by the resident, but to assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s response to matters raised, considering whether it reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with relevant legislation, and followed good practice.
  6. On 21 February 2022 the landlord inspected the property and noted in an internal email that there had been a leak to the bathroom from above, but no mould. A mould wash was also needed to the resident’s daughter’s bedroom. These were logged as “follow on works”.
  7. On 22 February 2022, to resolve a leak from the bathroom into the resident’s bedroom, sealant was applied to the wall between the rooms. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord carried out “follow on works” promptly, no evidence has been seen that the mould wash was carried out, meaning that the follow-on works were incomplete and the works were not “right first time,” as per the landlord’s repairs policy. No evidence has been seen that the landlord updated the resident on when the mould wash would be carried out.  
  8. A further inspection was carried out on 18 May 2022 with the operative noting in an internal email, “mould wash in bedroom new kitchen fan hack down [ivy] in between two walls on the outside waterproof brickwork on the same wall.” Whilst it is appropriate that the landlord inspected and identified at least part of the cause of the mould (the ivy), this happened too late (at least 60 working days after the landlord was aware of the mould), and no evidence has been seen that the works needed were logged on the landlord’s repairs system. Despite the landlord knowing that 1 of the resident’s children had asthma, there is no evidence seen that it assessed the level of risk to the resident and her household, carried out the works needed, or communicated with the resident regarding when the work would be done. The landlord therefore fell short of its policy standards and industry good practice such as set out in the Spotlight Report.
  9. On 3 August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that there was ongoing damp in the bedroom which had “destroyed” a chest of drawers. She had been told someone would come and cut down the ivy and carry out a mould wash, but this had not happened. She had been told the extractor fan would be replaced but this had not happened. It is disappointing that the resident had to “chase” the landlord to carry out the necessary works; the landlord did not achieve its policy standards of proactive management of works and effective communication with the resident.
  10. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 18 August 2022 said a technical inspector would carry out a further inspection on 22 August 2022 and compile a schedule of works. Its “environmental team” had been asked to inspect the ivy and remove it as a matter of urgency. “Please install extractor fan in bathroom,” was recorded on its repairs system on 18 August 2022, but this Service has not seen evidence that the need for an inspection, or to cut down the ivy was recorded.
  11. No evidence has been seen as to why the landlord needed to carry out a third inspection, rather than simply carrying out the works it had already identified as a result of the 22 February and 18 May 2022 inspections. Requiring a further inspection introduced a further delay. Furthermore, no evidence has been seen that the landlord carried out an inspection 22 August 2022, nor has a schedule of works been seen. A new extractor fan was installed in the bathroom on 16 September 2022, but the ivy was not cut down, the brickwork was not waterproofed, and the mould wash was not carried out. Therefore, the delay to these works continued.
  12. On 30 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord saying that the damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom was ongoing. She was still waiting for the ivy to be cut down. She listed further belongings that had been damaged by the mould. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 12 November 2022 stated that a job had been raised to resolve the damp and mould in the bedroom and living room and the landlord was “aiming to resolve this matter urgently.” The landlord said its operatives had been unable to access the garage roof to remove the ivy, but it had raised a job this to be done by external contractors.
  13. The landlord did not act with urgency to resolve the damp and mould, as promised. No evidence has been seen of corresponding works orders on the landlord’s system until 12 December 2022 when a job was raised to “please carry out mould washes as per A’s inspection.” The landlord’s records show that this job was marked completed on “01/01/1970;” therefore it is unclear if or when this work was actually carried out. There is no evidence seen that the ivy was cut down.
  14. On 16 December 2022, following further chasing by the resident, the landlord responded to say she would be contacted directly by the relevant teams with dates/times. No evidence has been seen that the resident was contacted as promised.
  15. On 18 January and 8 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, she mentioned having reported the damp and mould many times, and that the room smelled of damp. Her daughter had recurring tonsilitis and breathing problems. The window was covered in black mould. She listed belongings that had had to be thrown away due to being covered with mould and said that the compensation offered was not enough to cover this, as well as the cost of redecorating. The landlord had taken no action after inspections. The resident stated that her mental health was being affected by the issues. No evidence has been seen that the landlord contacted the resident in response to her reports of health problems related to the mould, carried out a risk assessment, or considered whether the property was fit for human habitation, in breach of its obligations and industry good practice.
  16. The stage 3 response from the landlord’s independent adjudicator on 28 March 2023 directed the resident to make a claim to the landlord’s insurers for damaged belongings. It stated that the landlord would carry out a detailed investigation to establish causes of damp, leaks and mould within 2 weeks, provide a schedule of works as soon as possible, and carry out the works without delay. It is unclear why the landlord could not have scheduled the removal of the ivy, the waterproofing of the brickwork and the mould wash forthwith, rather than promising a further inspection. Not doing so caused a further delay and cannot but have further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
  17. The resident informed this Service, on 16 May 2023 that the landlord had not cut down the ivy or remedied the damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom. She stated that she had called the landlord to chase up repairs many times and had been ignored or told to wait.
  18. Considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould overall, at least 13 months (278 working days) passed between the landlord becoming aware of the mould on 22 February 2022 and the final complaints response, during which time the landlord failed to cut down the ivy and waterproof the brickwork. There is no clear evidence that a mould wash was carried out during this time.
  19. Whilst the landlord carried out inspections, its record-keeping around this was poor, with works needed not logged on the landlord’s repairs system. There was insufficient oversight and a lack of proactive management to ensure that the work was carried out. The communication with the resident was very poor, meaning she had to repeatedly “chase” the landlord. There is no evidence seen that it responded to her expressed concerns about her daughter’s and her own health, carried out a risk assessment, or considered the reported health issues when establishing how urgently works should be carried out. The landlord was slow to advise the resident on the correct process to claim for damaged belongings. Cumulatively this constitutes maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Repairs to the staircase

  1. On 7 February 2022 the landlord logged a job on its repairs system to inspect the staircase as the wood was “coming away.” An inspection was carried out promptly, on 8 February 2022 and 2 days later the landlord logged a job for a repair to the staircase. The records show that a contractor attended on 31 March 2022, 39 working days after the initial report, outside of the target timescale for a routine repair in the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s records do not give any detail as to the work done. No evidence has been seen that the resident was kept updated regarding the reason for the delay or when the work would be done, in breach of the landlord’s policy.
  2. The resident’s initial complaint on 3 August 2022 said that the work to the staircase had not been completed. The stage 1 response on 18 August 2022 said that plasterboard should have been fitted by the landlord’s works supervisor, who was on annual leave. The contractor attended to carry out works to the underside of the staircase on 13 September 2022 but left after a disagreement with the resident about what work to be done. On 30 October 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the work had not been completed and she was dissatisfied with the standard of the work done.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 12 November 2022 said that it would ask the contractor to reschedule the appointment to complete the works. A job was raised on the landlord’s repairs system on 12 December 2022 for the contractor to “inspect and resolve stairs issues, replastering possibly needed.” This was marked as complete the same day, but the resident told the landlord on 8 February 2023 that the work had not been completed. The stage 3 response does not mention repairs to the staircase. The resident told this Service on 16 May 2023 that the work to the staircase had not been completed.
  4. Considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the staircase overall, although the landlord inspected promptly after the issue was reported, initial repair work did not start for 39 working days, in breach of its policy standard of 20 working days for a routine repair. The work was not completed at the first appointment and the landlord was slow to liaise with the contractor regarding completion of the work, in breach of its repairs policy which says that follow-on works will be arranged promptly. Although it is unclear if or when the repair to the staircase was completed, it is evident that the landlord was not proactive in managing the issue and communicating with the resident, who had to “chase” it to take action. The landlord should also have made clear to all parties exactly what works should be done and how it would satisfy itself those works were of a reasonable standard. Cumulatively this constitutes service failure on the part of the landlord.

Water ingress in kitchen

  1. Although she complained generally about repairs not being completed, the resident did not specifically mention water ingress in the kitchen in her initial complaint, on 3 August 2022. It is not evident that the landlord was made aware of water ingress in the kitchen at that time.
  2. On 30 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord providing further information about the repairs issues at the property, in the context of her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. In this email she stated that there had been a problem with leaks in the kitchen for “years,” and that despite the landlord inspecting, sealing the brickwork, clearing the guttering, and “dig[ging] out [a] small part of the wall and plaster,” the problem kept coming back. She stated that there was a water mark “[going] from one end of the wall to the other,” and a crack was forming on the water line.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaints response on 12 November 2022, said it had raised a job for operatives to attend and resolve the water ingress in the kitchen as a matter or urgency. However, this job was not logged on the landlord’s system until 12 December 2022 and not marked as complete until 25 October 2023, almost a year after the resident’s 30 October 2022 report.
  4. The resident’s email to the landlord’s independent adjudicator on 18 January 2023 said that the problem with water ingress in the kitchen was ongoing. The landlord’s stage 3 response on 28 March 2023 promised a detailed inspection within 2 weeks and any works required to be carried out without delay. However, no evidence has been seen that an inspection was carried out within 2 weeks, as promised. The resident told this Service on 16 May 2023 that the water ingress in the kitchen had not been resolved.
  5. Considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress in the kitchen overall, there was a delay of 31 working days between the resident emailing the landlord about water ingress in the kitchen on 30 October 2022 and it logging a job to inspect and resolve the water ingress on 12 December 2022. After being made aware that water ingress had returned in the kitchen, it was unreasonable that it did not immediately arrange an inspection by a surveyor or a specialist damp contractor. This is because it had carried out various works before which the resident had said essentially failed. In fact, there was a delay over almost a year before the job to inspect and resolve the water ingress was marked as complete.
  6. Although the evidence provided does not show whether or not the landlord ultimately satisfactorily resolved the water ingress, even if it did so, the extended delays are a clear breach of its repairing obligations and policy standards. The landlord did not consistently log work needed on its repairs system, which cannot but have contributed to its lack of oversight and proactivity in managing the issue, with the resident having to “chase” it to take action, contrary to its policy standards. Cumulatively this constitutes maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Waste left in communal walkway

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the tenant is responsible for keeping the communal areas around the property clean, tidy, and free from obstruction. The landlord reserved the right to charge the tenant for its reasonable costs for remedial work where this was not complied with e.g. for removing items and cleaning. This investigation has assumed that the resident’s neighbour’s tenancy agreement had similar terms.
  2. In May 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour had been working on their garden and had been leaving waste items, including bags of sand, in the communal walkway. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response on 12 November 2022, saying that it had spoken to the neighbour and asked them to remove the items, and would inspect the area to confirm this had been done. Asking the neighbour to remove the items and inspecting to confirm that this had been done was a reasonable response in the first instance.
  3. On 18 January 2023, the resident told the landlord that although the neighbour had moved some items from the communal walkway, not all of it had been removed and this made access difficult. She said that concrete slabs had been left in other areas around the estate. The resident also complained about the neighbour’s dog fouling outside her property.
  4. The landlord’s stage 3 response, on 28 March 2023 repeated that that it had spoken to the neighbour. It had made a report of fly-tipping to its ‘Love Clean Streets’ department and provided the resident with information how she could do this herself going forward. The landlord said that in the absence of evidence that the neighbour had breached their tenancy, there was nothing further it could do, beyond negotiating with them. Regarding the neighbour’s dog, the landlord said that the resident had provided insufficient detail to determine whether this “[met] the threshold for anti-social behaviour,” provided a link to information on the landlord’s website on “tackling nuisance behaviour and noise” and provided a link to report dog fouling to its ‘Love Clean Streets’ department.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to make a report of fly-tipping to the relevant department, and to advise the resident on how she could report fly-tipping and dog-fouling herself going forwards. However, the landlord was incorrect to imply that negotiating with the neighbour or taking action to evict them were the only possible steps. For example, the tenancy agreement reserved the right to charge tenants for removing waste left in communal areas. It would also have been good practice for the landlord to have given an explanation of how it defined anti-social behaviour, invited the resident to provide further evidence, and outlined what steps it could take in relation to anti-social behaviour. This would have provided the resident with clarity regarding why the landlord had chosen its course of action.
  6. Considering the landlord’s response overall, its actions as stated above were all reasonable steps. However, its explanation to the resident was insufficiently detailed, leaving her without clarity on why it had chosen its course of action, and what next steps were possible. Cumulatively, this constitutes service failure on the part of the landlord.

Complaints handling

  1. Landlords must follow an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. The landlord’s complaints policy current at the time required complaints to be acknowledged at stage 1 within 5 working days. Wherever possible the resident would be telephoned to discuss the complaint, the impact on them and their ideal resolution. The landlord would respond in full to the complaint within 10 working days, with extensions of up to 10 working days allowed, as long as it notified the resident of this, along with the reasons. Additional complaints raised during the investigation would be incorporated if relevant, and if this would not delay the issue of the decision letter. Where the response had already been issued or incorporating a new issue would unreasonably delay matters, a new complaint would be raised and reference number provided.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy required it to acknowledge requests to escalate to stage 2 within 5 working days, and respond in full within 20 working days, with extensions of up to 10 working days permissible. The policy included a third stage, in which the landlord’s “independent adjudicator” would review the matter. Requests to escalate to stage 3 are to be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to in full within 20 working days. The adjudicator would contact the resident to let them know if more time was needed.
  3. The landlord’s compensation, reimbursements and remedies procedure made provision for:
    1. Goodwill payments.
    2. Discretionary payments, “to put the person back in the position they would have been in before the issue occurred.”
    3. Time and trouble payments, “Where the resident has endured difficulties in taking forward their complaint, or LH’s services has fallen outside expected services standards, for example complaint response timescales were not met, a discretionary payment in the region of £10 to £50 may be considered to recognise the failure.”
    4. Inconvenience and distress payments. These are calculated taking into account: the severity of the issue, the length of time the resident was impacted. £0-£50 would be awarded for low impact, £51-£250 for medium impact, and £251-1,000 for high impact.

The procedure stated that the letter awarding compensation should give a clear explanation and breakdown as to how the figure had been arrived at.

  1. The resident’s initial complaint on 3 August 2022 was acknowledged by the landlord the following day. However, no evidence has been seen that it discussed the complaint with her by telephone, in breach of its policy. This was a missed opportunity to clarify the complaint definition. As a result of this, the stage 1 response did not capture all elements of the resident’s complaint, and therefore not all parts of the complaint were responded to, which cannot but have further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
  2. The evidence is unclear when the resident first requested escalation of the complaint to stage 2, however, the landlord did not acknowledge a request to escalate to stage 2 until 15 November 2022, which was after the landlord’s substantive stage 2 response, and therefore clearly too late. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 12 November 2022. As it is unclear when the resident initially requested escalation to stage 2 it is not possible to fully assess the timeliness of this. Nonetheless it is clear that the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations about the stage 2 process.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 October 2022 detailing her complaint. As well as the damp and mould and staircase repairs, the email referenced repairs issues not detailed in the initial complaint, or addressed by the landlord at stage 1, namely: water ingress in the kitchen, issues with the front and back door, and 2 “blown” double glazing panes in bedroom windows. The email listed further belongings that had been damaged by the mould. The landlord chose to incorporate the water ingress in the kitchen into the complaint at stage 2. The landlord also incorporated 2 further items: electrical issues and issues with the communal walkway. However, the door and window issues from the resident’s 30 October 2022 email were not addressed. The landlord did not explain its reasoning for incorporating some new complaint elements, but not others, and no evidence has been seen that a separate complaint was raised to deal with the remaining elements, as required by the landlord’s policy. This must have been confusing for the resident.
  4. It was appropriate that the landlord, in its stage 2 response, committed to further works to resolve the issues complained about. However, it would have been more appropriate to provide a detailed and specific schedule of works, with dates and times already booked, given the history of repairs being promised but not completed. The landlord missed a further opportunity to provide the oversight, co-ordination and monitoring that were missing from its actions thus far. It was unclear how the offer of £100 for “damaged belongings” was calculated, in breach of the landlord’s compensation procedure. As there was clear evidence that its service had fallen short of expected standards, and that the resident and her household had suffered inconvenience and distress it should have offered additional compensation. The stage 2 complaints process therefore did not succeed to put matters right for the resident.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 January 2023 to request escalation to stage 3 but this was not acknowledged, in breach of the policy. Appropriately, there is indication that the landlord’s independent adjudicator discussed the complaint with the resident by phone, although no detail of the content of this conversation has been provided.
  6. The stage 3 response was provided on 28 March 2023, 50 working days after the request to escalate, with no evidence seen of contact with the resident to explain this and provide an expected timeframe, in breach of the policy. The landlord did apologise for the lateness of the response. The elements of the complaint relating to damp and mould, water ingress in the kitchen and the communal walkway were defined in detail, but the other elements of the resident’s complaint were not defined or responded to, with no explanation given for this. This, again, must have been confusing and frustrating for the resident, who had already indicated that she felt she was not being listened to or taken seriously.
  7. There was no clear explanation of how the figure of £500 compensation was arrived at, although, as will be seen by the orders made in this case, it was too low.
  8. Considering the landlord’s complaints handling overall, the landlord failed to use this to put right the matters complained about and restore the landlord/tenant relationship. All elements of the resident’s complaint were not addressed, and the landlord did not explain why it chose to include some new complaints elements but not others. It is evident that there was a lack of careful thought in determining what steps were needed to actually resolve the matters complained about. The landlord missed opportunities to use the complaints process to achieve the level of oversight, co-ordination and monitoring that was lacking. The stage 3 response was very late with update or explanation to the resident. Cumulatively, this amounts to maladministration.

Conclusion

  1. In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping – 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. 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.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
    2. There was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the staircase.
    3. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of water ingress in the kitchen.
    4. There was service failure in relation to reports by the resident about a neighbour leaving waste in the communal walkway.
    5. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the following orders:
    1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum director level, must apologise to the resident in writing for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. The landlord must provide evidence to this service either indicating that it has completed the actions below or it has contacted the resident to arrange these:
      1. Cutting down the ivy.
      2. Waterproofing the brickwork.
      3. Mould washing any affected internal walls/ceilings.
      4. Repairs to the staircase.
    3. The landlord must arrange an inspection by a suitably qualified professional to establish the extent and cause of damp and mould in the property and the level of risk to health and safety to the resident and her household. The report of the inspection must include a schedule of any necessary works to remedy the damp and mould, with dates for the works pre-agreed with the resident. A copy of the report to be provided to the resident and this service.
    4. The landlord must arrange an inspection by a suitably qualified professional to establish the cause of water ingress in the kitchen. The report of this inspection must include a schedule of any necessary works to remedy the water ingress, with dates for the works pre-agreed with the resident. A copy of the report to be provided to the resident and this service.
    5. The landlord must inspect the communal walkway to ensure that no waste items remain. If waste items remain the landlord must explain to the resident in writing what steps it will take in relation to this, by when, with reference to any relevant policies/procedures.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,125, inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £500, and broken down as follows:
    1. £600 for distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s failures in handling damp and mould.
    2. £75 for distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s failures in handling repairs to the staircase.
    3. £300 for distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s failures in handling water ingress in the kitchen.
    4. £50 for distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s failures in relation to reports by the resident about a neighbour leaving waste in the communal walkway.
    5. £100 for time and trouble experienced pursuing the complaint.