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

Southwark Council (202317480)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317480

Southwark Council

28 February 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 the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for her.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2022 and reported an issue with damp and mould in her property. The landlord inspected on 13 January 2023. The outcome of the inspection is unclear.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 10 March 2023. She said the landlord had not completed any of the repairs identified during its inspection of 13 January 2023. She was unhappy she had to chase for the repairs, and the amount of time she spent on hold when trying to call it.
  4. On 24 March 2023, the landlord raised repairs to:
    1. Do an anti fungal treatment in the living room.
    2. Install humidity controlled extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
    3. Renew the sealant around the bath and basin in the bathroom.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for not raising the repairs after its inspection in January 2023. It outlined the repairs it planned to complete. In addition to those outlined above it said it would the renew the window trickle vent and repair the window sill in the living room. It offered the resident £100 in compensation for its handling of the repairs.
  6. The landlord installed the extractor fans and did the associated window works on 25 April 2024.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 May 2023 and said she wanted to make another complaint. She said it had not done the works to install the new trickle vent on the living room window, or the works related to the sealant in the bathroom.. It does not appear the landlord progressed with the repairs at the time. The resident contacted it again on 3 July 2023 and asked for an update. She was unhappy that she had to keep chasing the repairs.
  8. The landlord attended to repair replace the trickle vent on 1 August 2023, but was unable to as it needed to order a part.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 11 August 2023. It set out the history of the repairs. It apologised for the “significant delay” in doing the sealant works and installing the trickle vent. It offered the resident a further £95 in compensation for its handling of the repairs.
  10. The landlord completed the replaced the trickle vent and completed the sealant works on 18 August 2023. On 30 August 2023, the landlord offered the resident a further £50 for attending to the repairs appointment outside of the timeslot allocated to it.
  11. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and asked us to investigate her complaint on 12 September 2023 as she was unhappy with the compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
  3. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to non urgent repair within 20 working days.
  5. The information provided for this investigation shows that the landlord was on notice about the resident’s concerns about damp and mould from 15 December 2022. The landlord’s records states it has “no notes” related to the inspection raised at the time. This is a failing in its record keeping and we have seen no recorded outcome of its inspection from January 2023. It is reasonable to conclude that its poor information management at that stage contributed to the delays in addressing the resident’s concern. This inconvenienced her.
  6. While we have seen no record of the landlord’s inspection of 13 January 2023, the resident set out in her complaint it inspected on that date. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the inspection went ahead at that time. The inspection happened 18 working days after the resident raised her concerns. This was within the timeframe set out in its repairs policy and reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. The landlord accepted that it did not progress with the repairs identified at its January 2023 inspection. This is a failing in its handling of the matter that inconvenienced the resident. She was evidently distressed at the conditions in her property. The landlord’s failure to progress with the repair at that time may have increased the distress she experienced.
  8. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to acknowledge its errors, apologise, and offer compensation to the resident. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it sought to put things right for her. That it set out when the repairs would go ahead was appropriate and evidence it sought to progress with the matter with the appropriate urgency.
  9. Following its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord progressed with the extractor fan and related window repairs within its target repair timeframes. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously and sought to put right its earlier errors. However, it did not complete all the repairs it said it would within a reasonable timeframe. This inconvenienced the resident and she was further inconvenienced by the need to chase it about the outstanding repairs in May 2023.
  10. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to apologise for the “significant delay” in completing the outstanding repairs. This was appropriate and that it offered further compensation was reasonable in the circumstances. This is evidence the landlord sought to adopt our dispute resolution principle of putting things right.
  11. The landlord completed the outstanding repairs on 18 August 2023 which amounts to an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. We welcome the fact the landlord revisited its offer of compensation after it completed the repair.
  12. The landlord offered a total of £245 in compensation in recognition of its handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance sets out that an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. Considering, the failings identified above we have determined the landlord’s offer of £245 in compensation was appropriate to put right the errors in its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that it would send stage 1 complaint responses within 15 working days and stage 2 responses within 25 working days.
  2. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the timeframes for responding to complaints were not compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is worth noting that the landlord has since changed its policy and its complaint response timeframes are compliant with the Code. As such, we see no need to make an order in relation to its complaints procedure
  3. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 19 working days after she complained. While it is noted this was within its policy timeframes at the time, this was outside the timeframes mandated by our Code. This was a shortcoming in its complaint handling. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
  4. The resident expressed her ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs on 28 May 2023. That it did not open a stage 2 complaint at that time was unreasonable and a failing in its complaint handling that inconvenienced the resident. The Code states “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. That it did not do so is evidence it operated an obstructive complaints process that was unfair and hard to access for the resident. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to email it again on 3 July 2023 to ask to open a stage 2 complaint.
  5. The landlord was unable to send its complaint response within its target timeframe and contacted the resident to ask for an extension. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the tone of this email is concerning. The landlord stated: “if we decide that [we are] not at fault and conclude that our response would have the same outcome following a review, we will make a final decision not to proceed through the review phase”. It is noted that it did not refuse to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 (which it called the “review phase”). However, we have identified this as a point of learning for the landlord. Our Code states that a landlord must address a resident’s complaint at stage 2 if they remain unhappy. The above is evidence it did not adopt such an approach to its complaint handling at the time.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint was sent 54 working days after the resident complained. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its response, as it inappropriately set out the stage 2 complaint was made on 3 July 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge the unreasonable delay the resident experienced and missed an opportunity to show learning and put right the errors in its complaint handling.
  7. Due to the errors set out above we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance states that orders between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put right failings which adversely affected the resident and it has made no attempt to put things right. Considering this we have determined an order for £100 in compensation is appropriate to put right the errors in its complaint handling in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord pays the resident the £245 it offered for its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs (if it has not already done so). Our finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.