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

London Borough of Lewisham (202344279)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344279

Lewisham Council

28 November 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 reports of a leak, damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a flat.
  2. The landlord raised a work order on 12 February 2023 as the resident had lost electricity following a leak from the flat above, which it made safe the following day. Between February 2023 and September 2023, the landlord subsequently raised several further work orders relating to the leak, the electrics, and to repair damage to the resident’s property.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 September 2023 stating she had experienced leaks from the flat above for 6 months. The leak was impacting the bathroom, kitchen, bedrooms, and living room, and she had been unable to use the bathroom light for 3 months. She was concerned about the health and safety risk to her children, particularly due to dirty water entering the property and water in the lights. The resident chased the landlord’s complaint response on 29 September 2023, at which stage it recognised the correspondence as a complaint.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 17 October 2023, it said it attended on 10 May 2023 but was unable to gain access to the flat above, so it isolated the electrics in the interim. Its records showed the leak had been ongoing for several weeks, it isolated the electrics in September 2023, and it took steps to stop the leak into the resident’s flat on 2 October 2023. The anti-social behaviour (ASB) team were working with the neighbour to ensure a long-term solution. An electrician attended on 13 October 2023 to reinstate the electrics but advised that it needed more time to dry out, so it had rescheduled the appointment for 26 October 2023. It booked an appointment for 10 January 2024 to replaster the areas damaged by the leak. It asked the resident to send photos of the areas affected by the damp and mould and it would arrange an inspection if necessary. It referred the resident to her home contents insurance and its building insurance as it was not responsible for cosmetic remedial work or the replacement of any damaged items.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 January 2024. She said the leak had stopped but she had not received a response from the damp and mould team. The landlord had also failed to attend the plastering appointment on 10 January 2024. She said her children were unwell due to the mould.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 February 2024. It recognised that it was unacceptable that the damp and mould team had not contacted her. It had booked an inspection for 26 March 2024 and scheduled an interim mould wash on 4 March 2024. It apologised for the missed appointment to complete the plastering and scheduled a new appointment for 20 March 2024. It offered £20 compensation for the missed appointment, £50 for the inconvenience caused by chasing the damp and mould team, and £150 to apologise for the impact of the delays.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the level of compensation offered. She said there was currently damp on the ceiling and the landlord had recently painted so there was no visible mould, but she was unsure whether it had resolved the issue in full. She was concerned about health impact on the children. She also said the landlord had not paid the compensation offered at stage 2.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her family’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the building, and installations for electricity. Its repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. In its complaint response, the landlord has recognised the delays in its handling of the leak, damp and mould and offered £220 compensation. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The repair records show that the landlord raised a work order on 12 February 2023 as the resident had lost use of the electrics due to a leak from the flat above. It made the electrics safe the following day and then completed repairs to the leak on 26 February 2023. The landlord therefore acted in line with its repair response timeframes.
  4. The resident told the Service that the landlord removed the light in the shower, which it did not reinstate for approximately 2 months. The repair records show that the landlord made the light safe, but it does not confirm whether it completed follow-on work to reinstate the lighting, so the Ombudsman has accepted the resident’s account of the event. It is understood that the landlord may have been unable to immediately reinstate the lights as it can take time to identify and resolve the cause of the leak and wait for the area to dry out. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took steps to communicate the actions it was taking to the resident or inform her of the expected time frames, so it failed to manage her expectations.
  5. It was inappropriate that the landlord only focused on the repairs from May 2023 in its complaint response, when it is evident from both the resident’s complaint and the repair records that the leak had been intermittently ongoing since February 2023. It should have included the events in its response to demonstrate it had assessed its handling of the repairs and the impact on the resident in full.
  6. The landlord raised further work orders on 30 April 2023 to make safe the electrics following a leak and on 2 May 2023 to check a leak from the upstairs property. The landlord attended on 10 May 2023 to assess the leak and in its complaint response it said it was unable to gain access to the property above, so made the electrics in the resident’s property safe. It should have completed works to make the electrics safe as an emergency repair within 24 hours, as water in the light presented a potential health and safety issue. It therefore exceeded its repair response timeframe by 9 days, which was an unreasonable delay.
  7. The repair records show it reinstated the lights on 26 May 2023. The repair records do not confirm how the landlord satisfied that it resolved the leak or that it was safe to reinstate the lights, which is of concern as there is no evidence of any further works to address the leak following the no access appointment. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail, including details of the outcome of appointments, any necessary follow-on works, and how it satisfied it resolved the repair in full. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, it does not appear the landlord took appropriate steps to resolve the leak in May 2023.
  8. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. In this case, the lack of records may have prevented the landlord from identifying the necessary follow-on works and ensuring they were promptly completed. This is of particular concern as the resident subsequently experienced further leaks, and it is unclear whether the leak was constantly ongoing due to the landlord’s failure to complete the necessary works or if it was intermittent.
  9. The landlord raised 3 further work orders on 5 July 2023, 14 July 2023, and 3 September 2023 to make safe the lights and electrics following a leak. However, there are no repair records to confirm how it addressed the leak. In its complaint response, the landlord said its leak access team attended on 2 October 2023 and isolated various areas to stop the leak into the resident’s property. It therefore exceeded its repair timeframe by 43 working days, which was an unreasonable delay. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to manage the resident’s expectations about the actions it would take or the expected timeframe, which was unreasonable.
  10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it would inspect the neighbour’s property and was working with the ASB team to ensure a long-term solution.  The resident subsequently confirmed on 19 November 2023 that the leak was resolved. The leak was therefore intermittently ongoing for 9 months, which would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. There is limited detail in the repair records regarding how the landlord handled the leak, so there is insufficient evidence to confirm whether it took reasonable steps to resolve it as soon as possible. It is understood that the landlord experienced issues accessing the neighbour’s property, which would have caused delays which were somewhat outside of its control. However, it should have documented how it attempted to gain access and updated the resident to keep her informed on its progress. There is no evidence that it took such steps.
  11. The landlord also failed to attend the appointment on 10 January 2024 to replaster the areas damaged by the leak, as it agreed to in its stage 1 response. There is no evidence to suggest that it informed the resident it was unable to attend prior to the appointment, which would have caused her unnecessary time and trouble making herself available to provide access. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord offered £20 compensation for the missed appointment. It explained in its stage 2 response that there was a technical issue with the system which caused the job to be archived and not attended. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised the reason for the failing and it should ensure it takes steps to prevent a recurrence of the issue. It rescheduled the appointment to 20 March 2024.
  12. The repair records show that it subsequently painted the hallway, ceilings, and walls, on 21 August 2024. It would have been reasonable to have completed the follow-on remedial works at an earlier date to ensure the interior was made good as soon as possible. However, it is noted that the landlord is not typically responsible for cosmetic internal decorations, so this may have been completed as a gesture of goodwill.
  13. It is unclear when the resident initially reported damp and mould in the property. In its stage 1 response, the landlord asked the resident to send pictures of the areas affected by damp and mould and said it would arrange an inspection if necessary. The resident subsequently chased the damp and mould works several times between 30 October 2023 and 31 January 2024, which the landlord failed to respond to. This caused her additional time and effort and delayed resolving the repairs. It is important that landlords monitor the actions set out in complaint responses through to completion. Failure to do so not only delays resolving the substantive issue of the complaint, but it also has a detrimental impact on the resident’s trust in the landlord.
  14. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response that the damp and mould team had not contacted her, which it recognised was unacceptable. It scheduled an interim mould wash on 4 March 2024 and an inspection on 26 March 2024. The landlord therefore failed to take any action to address the damp and mould for over 5 months, which was an unreasonable delay. This is of particular concern as the resident had raised concerns about the impact on the children’s health.
  15. The landlord raised a work order on 3 April 2024 to complete remedial work following the damp and mould inspection. The Service has not been provided with a copy of the inspection report, so it is unclear what work was required to resolve the damp and mould. The repair records do not show any appointment dates or completion date for the works, so the Service is unable to determine that it acted appropriately. The resident told the Service that the landlord had completed a mould wash so there is currently no visible mould, but the ceiling is damp. In light of the resident’s concerns and the limited repair records, the landlord must complete a further damp and mould inspection and complete any additional required works. 
  16. In view of the evidence, there were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould. This had a detrimental impact on her use and enjoyment of the property. In addition, the loss of use of the bathroom light for several months would have caused further inconvenience, particularly as young children live in the property. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it had considered the impact on the children’s health and prioritised works where appropriate, which understandably caused the resident distress.
  17. In its final response the landlord offered £220 compensation for its failings in handling the repairs. It is of concern that the resident said the landlord has not paid the compensation, despite her accepting it. Nonetheless, the compensation was insufficient to the level of failing. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and attempted to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. Due to the length of the delays and the impact on the resident, compensation at the higher end of the guidance is appropriate. The landlord must therefore pay the resident an additional £600 compensation. 
  18. 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 the Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
  19. 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 Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould.

Orders

  1. In addition to the £220 compensation already offered, the landlord must pay the resident £600 compensation. It should provide the Service with evidence of the total payment of £820.
  2. The landlord should complete a damp and mould inspection and complete any recommended works. It should provide the Service with a copy of the inspection report and evidence that it has completed any recommended works.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.