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

London Borough of Wandsworth (202330253)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330253

Wandsworth Council

29 May 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 which we have 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 damp and mould within the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a ground-floor 3-bed flat, within a 4-storey block owned by the landlord. She lives with her 2 young children.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 December 2022 to report that her walls and ceiling had become “extremely damp”. She said she had noticed this since it started major works to the roof the previous month.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 February 2023. She said the property was unfit for habitation, and the conditions had affected her young son’s health. She asked it to investigate and repair the problem, and to pay her compensation.
  4. Following an inspection of the property, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 March 2023. It said it had not found any structural problems and suggested that the issue may be due to poor air circulation. It stated that she was responsible for the internal condition of the property as a leaseholder, however it agreed to conduct a mould wash.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 March 2023 as she disputed the facts of its response and said it had not replied to all her questions. She added that her floorboards were soaking and there were signs of woodworm. It sent a ‘supplementary stage 1 response’ on 21 April 2023. It said it had investigated all the possible causes relating to the structure of the building and had not found any faults other than a blocked rainwater outlet on the roof, which it had since cleared.
  6. The resident made a further request to escalate her complaint on 15 May 2023. She said that a structural issue must have caused the problem, and the landlord had been negligent. She repeated her request for compensation.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 June 2023. It said it had completed its investigations and there was no evidence of a problem with the fabric of the building. However, it accepted that the blocked rainwater outlet may have contributed and offered £250 in compensation.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and the amount of compensation it had offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the conditions in the property may have led to her young son’s chest infections. The most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness is the courts. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. The courts can examine oral testimony when disputes arise over the cause of an injury. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Damp and mould

  1. Issues with damp and mould are often complex, and it can take time for a landlord to find the cause. This is further complicated where the issue concerns a leasehold property, as the terms of the lease may impose certain responsibilities on the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states that a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach, and its responses must be prompt and reflect the urgency of the issue. We expect landlords to communicate well between teams and departments, and to ensure one team or individual has overall responsibility for making sure it resolves complaints and reports relating to damp and mould, including follow up or aftercare.
  2. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, we will consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  3. The resident reported her concerns on 5 December 2022 and the landlord responded the following day. It said it would investigate the matter urgently. Its records show that it discussed this with its major works team that day, who said they were aware of the problem as she had also raised this with its on-site contractors. Two senior officers visited her on 16 December 2022 and agreed there were signs of damp, and it conducted an inspection on 16 January 2023. It found signs of water ingress but said there were no visible defects, other than some repairs to be completed to the windows. It was not able to inspect the external wall due to the scaffolding but it later confirmed, in its stage 1 response, that it returned soon after and did not find any problems with the brickwork or cavity.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy gives examples of ‘emergency’ and ‘urgent’ repairs. These include burst pipes, a total loss of power, or anything that could cause immediate danger. It further states that it will respond to reports of routine repairs within 20 working days. The resident was understandably worried as she said the damp had made her young son unwell, and she had chased it on 5 January 2023. Its response times were in line with its policy, but it would have been helpful to have set these out earlier to manage her expectations, particularly as this was around the Christmas period. We have therefore made a recommendation about this.
  5. The landlord conducted a mould wash on 30 January 2023. Landlords are not usually responsible for clearing mould from the interior of a leasehold property, however it recognised that there were children in the household and it had not yet found the cause of the problem. This was good practice and aligns with the zero-tolerance approach set out in our Spotlight Report. Its records state that it also planned to repair the windows during the visit, which it believed would help with any damp or condensation. It is not clear whether it did so, although the resident has not raised any issues to the contrary.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 February 2023. Her comments and requests included the following:
    1. The property was unfit as she had to wipe down the walls each day despite running a dehumidifier, which collected a large volume of water. Items such as bedding and blinds were now mouldy including in the room she shared with her 1-year-old son.
    2. It had communicated poorly and should explain what it planned to do next and provide a schedule of works. She said this should include a full inspection of the building and each flat, to look for leaks or other possible causes.
    3. It should pay compensation to cover damage to her belongings, extra heating costs, and items she had purchased to mitigate the problem.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 2 March 2023, it said it was unlikely that the roof works had affected the resident’s property as she lived on the ground floor. It declined to pay compensation as it had not found any structural issues. It added that the weather in November 2022 had been unusually cold, and this had caused similar issues in other flats within the borough. In response to her concerns over communication, it explained that she had also involved 2 local councillors and it had also sent its responses directly to them on the understanding that they would pass this on. It concluded that the problem was likely to be due to poor ventilation and as a leaseholder, this was her responsibility.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 March 2023, as she questioned the facts of its response and said it had failed to address all her points. She also said an operative had lifted her carpets and found soaking wet floorboards and signs of woodworm. The landlord opted to provide a ‘supplementary stage 1 response’ rather than proceeding to stage 2, so it could address the new points. It issued that response on 21 April 2023, and said:
    1. A rainwater outlet had overspilled during heavy rain in late 2022, which may have contributed to the damp in the bedroom, however it had already cleared this. It had also cleared the weepholes in the external wall as a precaution.
    2. The presence of woodworm indicated an ongoing issue over the years, so was unlikely to be due to the recent works or poor weather. It added that condensation can also be a contributing factor to woodworm.
    3. It could not justify the cost of additional investigations, which it may have passed back to leaseholders anyway. It would expect any structural problems to have affected other flats in the block in the same way, and there was no evidence of similar reports. It also said it would be unrealistic to pro-actively check each flat for leaks.
    4. Tide marks showed that the walls were drying out, indicating that whatever had caused the damp was not a continuous issue. Damp had penetrated the property, but it had not been able to find the cause and it cited the possibility of exceptional circumstances at the time.
  9. We understand the landlord’s reasons for issuing a supplementary response at stage 1, however it should have proceeded to stage 2. Although the resident had raised additional points, these were still about the substantive matter and it would have been acceptable to address these as part of a stage 2 response. We have not made a failure finding as it had already reached its conclusions and the issue had not reoccurred, so this did not delay any remedial works or further investigations on its part. However, we have made a recommendation about its complaint handling.
  10. The resident made a further request to escalate her complaint on 15 May 2023. She maintained that the landlord was responsible and said it was clear that external issues had caused the problem. She stated that the landlord had partially admitted culpability by explaining the problem with the blocked rainwater outlet, so the issue was not solely down to condensation.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 June 2023. It did not change its overall position and said there was no evidence that the blocked outlet had caused the damp. However, it accepted that this may have added to the existing problem and offered £250 in compensation in recognition of this. This is in line with our remedies guidance in cases where a potential failure has adversely affected a resident, but the impact has not been permanent. It concluded that it would conduct a site inspection at the end of the major works to ensure it had completed these satisfactorily, and said the resident should report any new issues if they arose.
  12. Since her complaint, the resident has told us that she still has issues with woodworm. It is unclear whether she or the landlord have conducted any further investigations, therefore there is no evidence of the cause or any indication of which party may be responsible. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider completing a further inspection to investigate the presence of any woodworm and confirm any required repairs and responsibilities. The resident may also wish to instruct a surveyor to complete an inspection. Should this find any structural issues, she can refer this back to the landlord.
  13. The evidence shows that the landlord conducted appropriate investigations into the cause of the damp. Its internal email records show that it took the resident’s reports seriously and took prompt action. It was reasonable to use its professional judgement and rely on its contractor’s findings. It also demonstrated good practice by conducting the mould wash in January 2023. The landlord’s offer of compensation was also reasonable. We therefore find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves her complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that it explains its expected response times and provide updates to residents as the case develops. This will potentially avoid residents’ uncertainly and the need for them to chase it for more information. In situations where it is within its timescales, it should be mindful of the nature of the reported issue and how this may be affecting the resident.
  2. The landlord should review its complaint handling procedure, to ensure it responds appropriately to a resident’s request to escalate their complaint. If a resident raises additional matters in their escalation request, it must use its judgement to decide whether these still relate to the main issues raised in the original complaint. If it has any concerns about the best steps in future, it can contact us for advice on how to proceed.
  3. We also suggest that the landlord arrange a woodworm inspection, to identify the cause and ensure that it and the resident are clear on the responsibilities and next steps. If this is likely to incur a cost which the landlord may pass on to the resident, it should consider this and discuss this with her before taking any action.