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

Southwark Council (202411821)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411821

Southwark Council

30 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 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 and mould, and their proposed move to temporary accommodation.

Background

  1. The resident’s secure tenancy with the landlord began in 2013. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives with his wife and 4 children. The landlord was aware that the resident has a mobility issue and that one of his children is asthmatic. The resident’s wife is not named on the tenancy but was the primary contact with the landlord. For the purposes of this report both the resident and his wife are referred to as ‘the resident’. The landlord is a local council. For the purposes of this report the council’s housing directorate is referred to as ‘the landlord’. Any other service area is referred to as ‘the council’.
  2. In September 2023 the council wrote to the resident following its visit to confirm that her household was “not statutorily overcrowded”. During September and October 2023, the landlord completed damp and mould assessments of the resident’s property. It attempted to complete a mould wash, but the resident declined it. It advised her that she would need to move to temporary accommodation due to the extent of the works necessary to resolve the damp and mould.
  3. During October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the condition of her property. She asked to be permanently rehoused. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained why the move would be temporary. It offered its support with progressing the move, which the resident accepted the following day.
  4. From October 2023 the landlord tried to find the resident temporary accommodation. On 8 November 2023 the resident expressed her unhappiness with its lack of contact and escalated her complaint to stage 2. During the first half of December 2023 the landlord completed a full survey and schedule of works for the property following a disrepair claim from her solicitor. It also found temporary accommodation to offer the resident, but she declined it.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response, issued on 20 December 2023 committed to completing the works once she had moved to temporary accommodation. It accepted that there was a shortage of available properties. It stated its willingness to complete an interim mould wash but acknowledged the resident’s refusal of this and of the first property it had offered. It offered her £60 compensation for the time that she had waited prior to this. It offered a further £50 compensation for its delayed stage 2 response.
  6. Through 2024 the resident chased the landlord for progress with her move and expressed her continued distress with her property condition. She refused its further offers of temporary accommodation and mould washes. In November 2024 the landlord’s solicitor sent the resident a ‘notice of intention to issue legal proceedings’ to gain access for the repairs. The landlord told us that it was awaiting an update from its solicitor about this. It stated that its legal team remained in communication with the resident and her solicitor about her disrepair claim.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matters above. She said that the damp and mould had been ongoing since 2013 and described the health impact on her family. She explained why she considered the landlord’s temporary accommodation offers to be unsuitable. She said that in February 2025 she had made a further complaint about banding, and bidding, and provided us a copy of the council’s response. She expressed her wish to be urgently rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints against councils in respect of their management and provision of ‘social housing’. Under paragraph 41.d of our Scheme rules, we have no power to investigate a council’s wider statutory duties including allocations and rehousing where a person has reasonable preference. The resident’s request to be permanently rehoused falls within part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, as they allege they have reasonable preference by reason of the conditions in the property. As such we have no power to investigate this complaint and the resident may contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This would also apply to the matters raised in the resident’s February 2025 complaint.
  2. Complaints should be raised promptly so that landlords can take action to resolve the issues. The Ombudsman investigates complaints based on the evidence of service failure presented and it would not be fair to investigate back to 2013, when the resident said that the issues began. This is because as time passes records may become unavailable and memories fade and will not be reliable. This investigation is therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 2023 and its associated offers of temporary accommodation.
  3. The resident has referred to the impact of the matters related to her complaint on her child’s health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim. The resident could consider seeking independent advice on this matter. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the landlord’s consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities.

Damp, mould, and proposed temporary move

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide states that it prioritises jobs as emergency, urgent, or non-urgent. It says that it classes reports of “damp” as non-urgent and will complete an inspection within 20 working days.
  2. The complaint policy, provided by the landlord, referred to response times relevant to the handling of council complaints. However, its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that it operates a 2 stage process. It says that it aims to issue stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. Its compensation policy states that it will make payments for delays or distress and categorises the impact of this as either low, medium, or major. It says that it will pay £10 per week for medium impact delay or distress.
  3. On 19 April 2023 the landlord raised a mould cleaning job for the resident’s property. The landlord later stated that it had completed this on 21 April 2023 but the evidence does not show a completion date. Nonetheless, on 5 October 2023, the resident sent the landlord a photograph of her bathroom ceiling, which she said it had “washed a few months ago”.
  4. The next relevant information seen was on 27 September 2023, when the landlord raised an inspection of the resident’s property. It stated that this was urgent as “children [were] affected by [the] mould and damp”. It completed the inspection the following day and noted significant damp. It raised mould washes and completed further assessments over the following days.
  5. On 3 October 2023 it attended the resident’s property to complete the mould washes. It also separately visited her and proposed that it arrange temporary accommodation to allow for further works to take place. While the resident declined the mould washes, the landlord’s initial actions were all timely.
  6. The landlord’s decision to handle the matter as ‘urgent’ was contrary to its policy, which stated damp inspections were classified as ‘non-urgent’. However this increased priority, and its accompanying reports, demonstrated its consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities. On various occasions it encouraged the resident to allow it to complete mould washes, including in its stage 2 response and beyond. While the resident continued to refuse this, the landlord has demonstrated its reasonable efforts to assure her of the safety of mould washes.
  7. From 4 October 2023 the landlord and resident discussed her proposed temporary move. The resident expressed her concerns with this but was initially agreeable. However, on 9 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that a temporary move would be too disruptive and that she would refuse it. The landlord’s internal record noted that it would continue to look for accommodation “to keep this option open”. Its responses to her during this period were also appropriately empathetic.
  8. On 11 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the severe damp and asked that she be rehoused rather than offered temporary accommodation. The same day the landlord told her that the move would be temporary as her property was repairable. Its response acknowledged the resident’s “apprehensiveness in regards to temporary accommodation” and was again empathetic. It committed to update her regarding her works queries, which it did in its stage 1 response on 23 October 2023.
  9. The following day the resident asked the landlord to proceed with her temporary move. The evidence over the following 6 weeks shows the landlord’s efforts to find accommodation and its own frustration at the lack of availability. However, it does not show that it kept the resident informed.
  10. It was therefore understandable that, on 8 November 2023, the resident escalated her complaint citing the landlord’s lack of updates. The landlord’s acknowledgement the following day only advised that it would aim to send its stage 2 response by 7 December 2023. Its internal records continued to show its efforts to find temporary accommodation and its consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities. However, its apparent failure over the next 4 weeks to keep the resident updated added to its earlier poor communication.
  11. On 7 and 8 December 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident that it was not ready to send her its stage 2 response. It advised her that it had been unable to find accommodation within her area and suggested four properties in adjacent areas. The resident chose and viewed one of the properties. On 12 December 2023 the landlord noted that the resident had declined the property as the steps were too steep.
  12. On 20 December 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It committed to continuing to seek temporary accommodation that would meet her needs. It referred again to the severe shortage and made appropriate efforts to manage her expectations. It did not specifically refer to its communication failings but apologised for the time that she had waited. It said that its £60 compensation offer for this, was based upon £10 per week. This was in line with its policy. It offered her a further £50 for its stage 2 response being sent 10 working days beyond the timeframe of the Code. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  13. In 2024 the landlord made further offers of temporary accommodation, which the resident declined. She cited various reasons, including the standard of the properties and the difficulties that she would face getting her children to their different schools.
  14. Overall, the landlord failed to keep the resident appropriately informed between late October and early December 2023. While it did not fully acknowledge this failing, it did apologise for its delay and its compensation offer was in line with its policy. Its handling otherwise was timely and empathetic. The resident’s concerns about a temporary move are understandable. Nonetheless, the landlord demonstrated its willingness to complete the works. Its efforts to offer her temporary accommodation to allow this were reasonable and thorough.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and proposed move to temporary accommodation.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident any part of its total £110 award that it has not already done so.