London Borough of Lewisham (202418158)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418158

Lewisham Council

30 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damage, including damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports of extractor fan repair issues.
   3. The resident’s concerns that there was insufficient space for a washing machine and cooker in the kitchen.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a 1-bedroom flat. She moved into the property in July 2023 through mutual exchange.
3. The landlord raised several work orders between 11 August 2023 and 5 February 2024 including to make space for a washing machine, supply a ventilation system, repair a leak and subsequent damage, and complete damp proofing.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 20 February 2024. She said there was an outstanding job to address the damp and mould in the living room. She also said there was not a switch for the cooker and there was insufficient space in the kitchen for a cooker and washing machine. She wanted to be reimbursed for money spent taking her washing to the laundry.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2024.
   1. It scheduled an appointment for 15 March 2024 to repair the kitchen tiles.
   2. It would inspect the kitchen sockets on 25 February 2024, but it may not be possible to add a new socket.
   3. It reviewed photos of the kitchen and said there was spaced for a cooker and washing machine. It advises residents to measure the area before purchasing appliances to ensure they fit.
   4. A damp and mould surveyor would inspect the property on 17 April 2024. It completed damp and mould works in August 2023 and at the time the damp proof course was not in need of replacement, but it found on 22 January 2024 that it had since perished.
6. The resident escalated the complaint the same day. She said although there was now adequate space for the washing machine and cooker, her current appliances were unable to fit in the space. She thought the kitchen layout was modified by the previous tenant. A contractor removed a cupboard to allow space for the washing machine and found water under the floor. It took 4 weeks for the landlord to attend regarding the leak which resulted in damage to the flooring and tiles. She added that there was mould to the living room walls and the landlord had cancelled work to the hallway cupboard and extractor fan which resulted in more mould.
7. In the stage 2 response on 16 April 2024 the landlord said:
   1. It cancelled the extractor fan works due to the change in tenancy as the resident acquired the property by mutual exchange. It then re-raised the required works, and the contractor attended on 12 October 2023.
   2. An electrician attended on 16 April 2024 to inspect the kitchen sockets, and it was awaiting the findings.
   3. It would complete a damp and mould inspection on 17 April 2024. The surveyor would also address the resident’s concerns about the kitchen extractor fan.
   4. A contractor inspected the damaged flooring on 15 March 2024 and recommended to replace it with lino. It would complete the works after the damp and mould inspection.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the complaint as there were several outstanding works including repairing the kitchen extractor fan, replacing the bedroom and hallway flooring, resolving the damp and mould, and making good the damaged plaster. She said the landlord asserted that it could not gain access to the property, but this was not communicated to her. She said she had no space for her washing machine for months and had to pay to get her laundry done.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damage, including damp and mould

9. The landlord’s website states it considers uncontainable leaks as emergency repairs, which it will complete in 24 hours, and containable leaks as routine repairs to complete within 20 working days.
10. The landlord’s damp mould and leaks policy dated January 2024 outlines that it will treat all reports of leaks, damp, and mould seriously and will take a solution, focused, holistic approach whenever it can. It adds it will communicate clearly and keep residents informed of what action it will take, why it is taking it and when it will do this. Where it is unable to take immediate action, it may offer an interim solution and support to limit the impact. The Ombudsman recognises that this policy was not available at the time of the resident’s initial reports but is referenced to as a sensible guide.
11. The landlord has not provided thorough communication records with the resident regarding the repair. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is 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. With the absence of evidence, some of the account of events has been taken from the timeline the resident provided in her complaint, as there is no evidence the landlord disputed this.
12. The resident reported a leak from the pipes behind the washing machine on 18 October 2023. The landlord marked the work order as complete on 20 November 2023. The landlord therefore exceeded its routine repair timeframe by 13 working days. There is also no evidence that the landlord confirmed the condition of the leak, including whether it was containable, to properly assess what priority to handle it. It is unclear whether it resolved the leak in full at this appointment.
13. In her complaint the resident said the landlord told her on 1 December 2023 the repair manager was on annual leave and would contact her the following week, but it failed to do so. She said she chased an update on 7 December 2023, 13 December 2023, and 17 December 2023. A contractor subsequently attended on 3 January 2024. As the landlord did not adhere to the agreed timeframes, the resident incurred additional time and effort chasing the repairs. The landlord should ensure that it is proactively managing repairs to not place onus on the resident to continue to pursue the necessary works.
14. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended on 3 January 2024 to trace and remedy a leak from the garden into the living room. It raised follow-on work the same day to damp proof the external wall as water was entering the property, which it attended on 22 January 2024.
15. The landlord raised a work order on 18 January 2024 to inspect the kitchen tiles, wall, and cupboard after damage from the leak. In her complaint the resident said there was dirty brown water seeping through the kitchen floor tiles. She added that the cupboard was “smelly, mouldy and wet”.
16. The landlord inspected the damaged flooring on 15 March 2024 and recommended to replace it with lino. It also completed a damp and mould inspection on 17 April 2024 which outlined several works to the living room including to hack of the water damaged plaster and complete a mould wash. Given the resident’s reports of poor kitchen condition, the landlord should have prioritised the remedial work. It was unreasonable that it did not complete the inspections until 3 months after it completed the damp proof course to address the underlying issue as it caused additional delays in resolving the matter in full.
17. The repair records show that the landlord provided a dehumidifier on 18 March 2024, attended on 18 April 2024 to repair the kitchen cupboard, on 19 June 2024 to repair the kitchen tiles, and on 28 June 2024 and 19 September 2024 to repair the flooring. It is recognised that it may have been necessary to have a drying period before completing remedial works. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided any reasons to the resident for the extended timeframe to complete the works. It therefore did not take appropriate steps to manage her expectations.
18. The damp and mould inspection on 17 April 2024 noted that the landlord needed to investigate a possible leak from the rear drains or adjoining flat. The landlord noted that the resident did not grant full access on 7 May 2024 to carry out a full CCTV survey, so the contractor surveyed the manhole but needed to rebook the rest of the survey. The same day, the resident told the landlord that the contractor attended with no prior notice. In the absence of any evidence that it notified the resident of the appointment, it was unreasonable that the landlord placed responsibility for the missed appointment on the resident. The landlord should ensure it provides sufficient notice to residents to prevent delays caused by not being able to gain access.
19. The landlord internally noted on 1 October 2024 that it had been unable to gain access for the CCTV drain survey. It had tried to gain access again, left a voicemail, and “believed” it had cold called and left a no access card. While these are reasonable steps to gain access, the landlord has not provided any contemporaneous evidence to confirm the actions, and it does not appear to be confident that all actions had been completed. There is no evidence it took any steps to gain access between October 2024 and January 2025 or that it informed the resident of the necessary steps to rearrange the appointment.
20. The landlord told the resident on 30 January 2025 that it was unable to gain access to carry out the CCTV survey and could not complete further works until it had done this. Again, the resident said she had not been informed of any appointment or required access.
21. The resident told the Service that there was ongoing damp and mould in the property due to potential water ingress and the landlord had not identified the cause. She also said there were outstanding works to replacing the flooring in the bedroom and hallway, and to make good the plastering in the living room, bedroom, and hallway. The landlord therefore must rearrange the CCTV drainage survey, providing sufficient notice to the resident, and complete any recommended repairs to the leak. It must then complete a damp and mould survey and complete any required repairs, including to the outstanding issues raised by the resident.
22. Overall, it is clear there were delays in the landlord resolving the leaks and completing repairs to damage to the property. The landlord took a month to initially attend the resident’s reports of a leak. There were subsequently significant delays in repairing the damage to the flooring, tiles, and kitchen cupboard. The landlord has also not demonstrated it has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the possible second leak, identified in the damp and mould inspection which was completed as part of the complaint resolution. As a result, there are still several ongoing repair issues, which continue to have a detrimental impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property. The landlord failed to keep the resident regularly updated on the progress of the work or inform her of any reasons for the delays, so she incurred additional time and effort pursuing the works.
23. The landlord did not recognise any shortcomings of its handling of the repairs within its complaint responses. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £100-£600 compensation is appropriate in cases where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings or put things right. In this case, given the length of time the issues have been ongoing the landlord must pay the resident £600 compensation.
24. 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.
25. 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.

The resident’s reports of extractor fan repair issues

26. The landlord raised a work order on 9 February 2023 to survey and quote for full flat ventilation, but this was cancelled. The resident subsequently moved into the property July 2023. It is understood that there may have been administrative reasons for the landlord cancelling the initial order as it may have needed to re-raise it with the resident’s details once she took over the tenancy. We cannot comment on why the landlord did not complete the works between February 2023 and July 2023 as we do not have any records relating to the previous tenant.
27. Nonetheless, the landlord should have promptly completed the works once the resident’s tenancy commenced as it was aware of the need for such repairs. The landlord did not re-raise the repair until 24 August 2023. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the contractor attended on 12 October 2023. The resident told the Service the contractor installed a new bathroom extractor fan and vent in a cupboard at this appointment. It therefore took 3 months to complete the work once the resident moved in. This was an unreasonable delay as it should have completed it as a routine repair within 20 working days.
28. The resident was also dissatisfied that she had to pursue the landlord for the work to be completed. The landlord should have taken accountability for any necessary repairs and had appropriate oversight over any works that remained outstanding at the point of the mutual exchange. As it failed to do so, the resident had to incur additional time and effort chasing the works. As highlighted by the resident, delaying the works would only cause further detriment with damp and mould issues, which she reported got worse during this period.  
29. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said a surveyor attending on 17 April 2024 would address the resident’s concerns about the kitchen fan. There is no evidence to confirm when the resident initially raised such concerns, so it is unclear when the landlord was first on notice for the repair.
30. The resident chased the kitchen extractor fan works on 30 April 2024, 8 May 2024, and 30 July 2024. She told the Service that the matter remains outstanding. In line with the Service’s complaint handling code, any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. The landlord’s handling of the matter was therefore unreasonable as there is no evidence the surveyor addressed her concerns or that the landlord recognised her attempts to chase the matter.
31. If the landlord deemed works to the kitchen extractor fan were not necessary, it should have advised the resident of this to manage her expectations. However, there is no evidence to confirm that it inspected the extractor fan to assess the resident’s concerns. The landlord therefore must inspect the kitchen extractor fan and complete any recommended repairs.
32. The landlord did not recognise any failings in its handling of the matter in its complaint responses. £100 compensation is warranted for the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the extractor fans. There was a 3-month delay in completing the works when the resident moved in. It also has not addressed her concerns about the kitchen extractor fan for over a year, which is an entirely unreasonable delay.

The resident’s concerns that there was insufficient space for a washing machine and cooker in the kitchen

33. The resident moved into the property through mutual exchange. The landlord does not have a policy regarding mutual exchange including how it will manage repairs in such cases. Typically, residents are responsible for carrying out their own visual inspection before the exchange and ensuring the property is suitable. The resident should have assessed whether the space was suitable for existing appliances before accepting the tenancy or accepted any associated costs if not. However, it is unclear whether this was communicated to the resident to manage her expectations regarding her responsibilities.
34. The landlord’s repair guide states it is not responsible for installing or connecting washing machine appliances or connections. Creating additional space for the resident’s white goods would be considered an improvement, which the landlord would not necessarily be obliged to complete. Further to this, in its stage 1 response the landlord said it advises residents to measure the area before buying any new appliances to ensure that they fit.
35. The landlord raised a work order on 11 August 2023 to create space for the washing machine. It therefore exceeded its repair obligations in completing works to ensure the resident could install her washing machine. The repair records show it attended on 16 August 2023, and it completed the work on 14 September 2023. This took 24 working days, which slightly exceeded the 20-day repair timeframe but was not an unreasonable delay.
36. The landlord raised a further work order on 26 September 2023 to install an electrical socket for the washing machine. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would inspect the kitchen sockets on 25 March 2024, but it may not be possible to install an additional socket. In its stage 2 response, it said an electrician attended on 16 April 2024 and it was waiting for the findings. The same day, the resident confirmed the contractor had moved the plug socket for the washing machine.
37. In line with its repair guide, the landlord was not responsible for installing new connections for the washing machine. However, in this case as it had raised a work order, it set the resident’s expectations that it would complete the work. There was a 6-month delay in the landlord raising the work order and attending to assess the matter, which was unreasonable. It is recognised that the repairs to the leak, which have been assessed above, possibly contributed to the delays as it may not have been safe to complete electrical works until the area was dry. However, there is no evidence that this was communicated to the resident, so the landlord did not reasonably manage her expectations. It is unclear whether the resident was able to utilise other plug sockets in the interim period to use the washing machine.
38. As an outcome of the complaint, the resident wanted reimbursement for money spent on laundry. The landlord did not address the request in its complaint responses, which was unreasonable as it should respond to all points raised within the complaint. Nonetheless, as the landlord was not responsible for ensuring that the resident’s appliances fit in the provided spaces at the onset of the tenancy, and there was no prior agreement that it would cover the costs if the resident used a laundry service, it would not be responsible for reimbursing her for any costs incurred.
39. However, in view of the 6-month delay in assessing the resident’s request for an additional plug socket, £100 compensation is warranted. This is because the landlord’s handling of the issue delayed getting matters resolved. The landlord should also consider implementing a policy regarding repair responsibilities in the case of mutual exchange to set clear guidelines for all parties.

Determination

40. 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 and subsequent damage, including damp and mould.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of extractor fan repair issues.
42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that there was insufficient space for a washing machine and cooker in the kitchen.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

43. The landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £600 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damage.
    2. £150 for the delay in replacing the bathroom extractor fan and addressing the resident’s concerns about the kitchen extractor fan.
    3. £100 for the delay in addressing the resident’s request for an additional plug socket for her washing machine.
44. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the Service with evidence of the total payment of £850.
    2. Complete a CCTV drainage survey. It must provide the Service with a copy of the inspection report and provide repair records to confirm it has completed any recommended works.
    3. Inspect the kitchen extractor fan and complete any necessary works. It must provide the Service with repair records to confirm it has completed any required works.
45. Within 8 weeks, the landlord must complete a damp and mould inspection. It must provide the Service with a copy of the inspection report and a schedule of works including the start date and anticipated timeframe to complete the works. It should ensure this includes any outstanding remedial works, including the flooring in the bedroom and hallway, and plastering in the living room, bedroom, and hallway.

Recommendations

46. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs policy to include how mutual exchange impacts repair responsibilities.