Southwark Council (202431570)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431570

Southwark Council

24 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s housing transfer request.
2. the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated 2012. The landlord is a local authority. She lives in a 1-bedroom flat with her 3 children and husband. The flat is on the second floor of a house. The landlord is aware that the resident has multiple health vulnerabilities and that her children have experienced breathing and skin issues.
According to its records the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection in July 2023 and ordered works. In August 2023 it undertook a mould wash. It noted the kitchen worktop was rotten and needed further assessment. On 7 December 2023 it completed a damp and mould inspection. It found:
1. mould and condensation were present in the living room and bedroom due to single glazed window condensation.
2. no extractor fans were installed.
The landlord mould washed in the home on 27 December 2023 and 5 January 2024. In early 2024, the landlord inspected the property for damp and mould 4 times, opened a stuck window and installed a window spinner vent. The resident reported mould again in April and the landlord inspected on 16 April 2024. It stated extractor fans needed to be fitted and works to the roof and pointing needed to be completed.
The resident complained that her overcrowding application had not been assessed and that the damp and mould was reoccurring on 21 June 2024. She said the landlord had told her the damp and mould were caused by overcrowding. She wanted to move property to resolve the issue.
On 12 July 2024, the landlord apologised for not progressing the resident’s overcrowding assessment within its policy timeframe in a stage 1 response. It did not respond to the resident’s complaint about damp and mould.
The resident reported damp and mould on 23 July 2024, and the landlord inspected on 2 August 2024. It stated that water ingress from the windows was causing mould. It said the windows needed to be overhauled before any further damp and mould works were completed. This was passed to a contractor who reported that the resident did not give access to 2 appointments in October and November 2024. The resident said she was concerned about the paint triggering her health issues and wanted to check this with her GP.
The resident reported mould to the landlord on 12 November 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated on 20 November and 2 December 2024. She said:
1. she wanted to move and to be compensated for the damp and mould damage.
2. she could not be in the home when paint or chemicals were being used.
3. she was unhappy with the delay to the windows being replaced.
4. she was distressed because she said the landlord’s contractor had attended without appointment on 2 December 2024.
The landlord gave a second stage 1 response on 6 December 2024. It said:
1. it had visited and ordered works to paint and make good the windows.
2. it had completed a mould wash in December 2024.
3. the works had originally been raised in March 2024 and apologised that these had not taken place within a reasonable timeframe.
4. it offered £420 compensation for the delay, time and trouble and £50 for its late stage 2 response.
The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its response on 3 January 2025. She said the damp and mould was returning and she had been told this was because they were overcrowded and the windows were leaking. She said she needed to be temporarily rehoused before works could take place due to the repair chemicals affecting her health. To resolve the complaint, she wanted to permanently move to a 3-bedroom property in the area and compensation for damage caused by the damp and mould.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 7 March 2025. It said that works had taken longer than expected and there had been multiple visits for the same issue. It said:
1. some of the delays had been due to waiting for the GP paint assessment which was beyond its control.
2. it was currently assessing if the resident’s permanent rehousing needed to be prioritised due to the damp and mould.
3. it provided her with her login details to use the council housing bidding site and encouraged her to continue bidding for properties.
4. if her belongings were damaged, she could submit a claim to its insurance.
5. offered her £250 for the distressed caused due to 5 visits for the same issue and £50 for its stage 2 delay.
In July 2025 the resident told this Service she was still unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that she did not think the repairs needed could be carried out unless she was temporarily rehoused due to her health issues. She wanted to be permanently rehoused to resolve the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

In correspondence with the landlord, the resident said that she wished to be moved permanently into a different property because she was overcrowded. She also raised concerns about the priority banding the landlord had allocated to her.
Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme states:

“41. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion d. concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.”

The resident’s landlord was also the council. Councils are only required to be members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme for their management of social housing and long leases, not actions by a council which relate to the management of social housing or long leases. For example, homelessness duties are obligations set out by Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and are owed to all citizens of a borough who make an application to a council. It is therefore a wider public duty.
The suitability of accommodation because of overcrowding is not the management of social housing or a long lease. This means the complaint about the council’s handling of the resident’s transfer request because of overcrowding and her priority banding are not matters that the Housing Ombudsman has any jurisdiction to investigate. The resident may complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman about these issues if she wishes.

Scope of the investigation

The resident said there was damp and mould in the property since the start of the tenancy. It is not possible for this Service to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back that far. The Ombudsman will only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. Therefore, this investigation will consider events from June 2023 (12 months before the resident’s complaint).

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

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 defective in matters including repair, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of wastewater, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
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.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend:
1. emergency repairs which pose a serious risk to health and safety within 24 hours.
2. urgent repairs within 3 working days. This includes if extractor fans are not working in bathrooms or kitchens.
3. non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. This includes inspecting damp and mould to assess the most appropriate course of action.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) is available on our website. This highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations which include:
1. a minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
2. ensuring that the landlord can easily interrogate databases, and that data can be extracted when needed.
The landlord addressed several repair issues associated with the damp and mould in its complaint responses. For ease of reference, we have referred to each issue separately below.

Kitchen worktop

The landlord ordered work to the kitchen sink seal on 12 July 2023. The landlord attended the property on 25 August 2023. It said it could not renew the seal as the worktop was rotten. It recorded that it would contact the resident to arrange an inspection on the worktop. The landlord did not follow its repairs policy timeframe and did not contact the resident again about the kitchen worktop. This was a failure when assessed against its repairs policy.

Windows and concerns around paint and chemicals

The landlord first identified that mould on the living room wall was due to condensation from the single glazed windows in December 2023. It did not order these be overhauled until August 2024. The landlord’s internal communication was unclear on whether these required upgrading to double glazing or if the issue causing water ingress could be repaired. Neither the delay nor the exact work required on the windows was communicated to the resident which was a failing.
On 21 June 2024 the resident told the landlord that she had previously experienced health issues triggered by chemicals and paint. She was concerned about any work taking place involving paint and wanted to check this with her GP. On 25 June 2024 the landlord emailed the resident technical details of the paint which would be used. This was reasonable.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 July 2024. The resident explained the issues with chemicals and that she wanted her GP to approve any products. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to check the resident had received the paint details and to ask if she had shared this with her GP.
The landlord ordered the windows be overhauled on 13 August 2024. The landlord tried to call the resident on 2 and 13 September 2024 to arrange works on the windows. The contractor reported that they also tried to contact the resident during this time. This was reasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 October 2024 and booked an appointment for 15 October 2024. There is no record of the contractors visit on 15 October 2024. It is therefore not possible to assess if the landlord’s actions were reasonable. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord booked another windows appointment with the resident for 6 November 2024. This was recorded as no access. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact and ask the resident why no access was given.
The contractor recorded no access given to a cold call attempt on 2 December 2024. The resident reported that she was distressed by this visit. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time did not explain how it would give notice of repair visits. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairing trust notes that ‘cold calling’ can contribute to a lack of trust between landlord and residents. The landlord has not demonstrated that it attempted to tell the resident about this visit in advance and that was a failure.
On 5 December 2024 the resident told the contractor she would not accept any appointments before discussing the paint with her GP. She stated she did not receive the email sent by the landlord about paint details on 25 June 2024. Evidence shows that the contractor tried to share paint details with the resident in person. This was reasonable.
The resident told the landlord on 3 January 2025 that cleaning and paint products could not be used in the property unless she was temporarily rehoused. In March 2025 the contactor reported that there were delays due to the resident refusing access pending her communication with her GP. It was the resident’s responsibility to communicate with her GP. It would have been reasonable for the resident to tell the landlord she had not received the paint details, and she had not yet contacted her GP.
The delay from December 2024 to the windows work cannot be attributed to the landlord’s actions. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the landlord’s attempts to arrange access for the windows work between June 2024 and March 2025, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to directly ask the resident if she had received the paint details and if she had contacted her GP. It sent the resident this information again on 3 March 2025. This was a reasonable, but delayed action.

General damp and mould issues

Under the landlord’s repairs policy and its HHSRS obligations, the landlord was responsible for assessing the damp and mould reports, giving advice and offering repairs if necessary. The landlord ordered a mould wash on 12 July 2023. It conducted a mould wash 32 working days later on 25 August 2023. The landlord did not explain the delay to the resident, which was unreasonable.
The landlord conducted a damp and mould assessment on 7 December 2023. It ordered a mould wash and extractor fans to be fitted in the kitchen and repaired in the bathroom. The landlord’s policy states broken extractor fans should be repaired within 3 working days. The landlord fixed both extractor fans on 26 Jan 2024. This was 33 working days after it identified the need and was outside of its policy timeframe. It did not explain the delay to the resident. This was not reasonable.
The landlord conducted a mould wash on 27 December 2023. It confirmed this in advance with the resident. This was within its policy timeframe. On 2 January 2024, the resident reported ongoing and new issues with damp and mould. She said she was having an allergic reaction to the damp and mould and did not feel safe staying in the property. The landlord considered its duties under the Homes Act 2018, classed this as an emergency repair and attended the home on the same day. This was a reasonable approach.
The landlord has not provided records of its communication with the resident between August and December 2023. This is a record keeping failure. It is therefore not possible to assess if the landlord reasonably communicated with the resident or when the resident reported damp and mould in this time.
During this visit the landlord ordered an air vent for the bedroom and another mould wash. Given that the landlord had mould washed 5 days earlier, it would have been reasonable for it to question why another was necessary. Evidence from early January 2024 shows that the landlord struggled to identify which works and visits had taken place. This was a record keeping failure that contributed towards multiple visits for the same actions taking place.
In January 2024 the landlord discussed additional ventilation options with the resident. It considered her views and changed its plan accordingly. It fitted a window spinner vent on 26 February 2024. There was a delay, however evidence shows that this was due to consultation with the resident.
The resident shared a letter from her children’s nurse on 8 March 2024 stating their health was being negatively impacted by the damp and mould present in the home. The healthcare professional recommended rehousing the family was a priority, and, in the meantime, work needed to be done to correct the causes of damp.
The resident reported new mould on 14 March 2024 which the landlord acknowledged. It ordered another inspection to find the underlying reasons for the damp and mould. This was a reasonable course of action.
The resident told the landlord that her son had been in hospital with breathing difficulties on 1 April 2024. She said she thought this was related to the damp, mould and passive cigarette smoke. The landlord responded empathetically and said a technical inspection had been scheduled for 8 April 2024.
A condensation assessment took place on 16 April 2024. It is unclear why the date was delayed, and this is a record keeping failure. This was 22 working days after the resident’s report of new mould on 14 March 2024 and was outside of its policy timeframe for non-urgent repairs. Given that the resident had told the landlord that her child had been in hospital and she believed this was related to the damp and mould, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider if it needed to categorise this as an emergency repair.
The April 2024 inspection confirmed mould was still present. It noted the extractor fans were ineffective in the April 2024 inspection. Condensation assessments in August 2024 and May 2025 recorded that no extractor fans were installed. It is unclear if the landlord attempted to follow this up with the resident and find out why the extractor fans repaired in 2023 were no longer working or present. This was not in line with its repairs policy.
In April 2024 the landlord noted repairs to the roof and pointing were needed promptly to address damp. This work was not ordered and has not been completed. This failing was not in line with its repairs policy.
Between December 2024 and May 2025 evidence shows that the landlord inspected the property and assessed whether the resident needed to be temporarily rehoused while works took place.
The landlord notified the resident that temporary rehousing was not required on 2 May 2025. The landlord considered the resident’s disabilities and provided opportunities for her to share medical evidence. This was an appropriate response.
This Service acknowledges that it can sometimes take several visits to establish the cause of an issue. However, the landlord formally inspected for damp and mould at least 7 times and visited the property on multiple occasions over a 2-year period.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the distress the resident had experienced and offered her £420 for the delays and £250 for the multiple visits for the same issue. In the stage 2 response, the landlord provided a clear and accountable explanation for the delays. It said it would contact her to let her know if temporary rehousing was required for the repairs to take place. This was a reasonable attempt at being fair and putting things right for the resident.
Though the compensation offer was in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble, the landlord did not acknowledge the ongoing delay to the kitchen worktop, pointing and roofing repairs. Had it done this, the resident may not have felt it necessary to escalate her complaint to this Service.
In conclusion we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs. This is because of:
1. its poor record keeping in relation to:
  1. the resident’s service requests.
  2. the categorisation of repairs and agreed timescales.
2. its failure to complete works to the kitchen worktop, the roof and pointing.
3. delays to fitting extractor fans in 2023 and its failure to investigate why the fans were not working in 2024.
4. its failure to follow up the paint details and to check if the resident had completed the action needed for works to begin.
5. the compensation offered to the resident was not quite proportionate to the impact caused by the failings identified in our investigation.
The resident reports that she is very distressed by the ongoing issues. In line with the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order additional compensation of £250 to recognise the likely distress caused by the failure to complete works to the kitchen worktop, roof, extractor fans and pointing. We have also made orders to complete outstanding repairs and share a risk assessment for these repairs with the resident.

The associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action…affecting a resident’.
The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that it would send stage 1 responses within 15 working days and stage 2 responses within 25 working days.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, these timeframes were not compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s policy is now compliant with the Code.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 21 June 2024. This complaint was about both her housing application on the grounds of overcrowding and the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould. The landlord responded 15 working days later. It only investigated her housing application issue. It failed to respond to her complaint about damp and mould. This was a failure which significantly delayed the resident in escalating her complaint and addressing her concerns about damp and mould through the complaints process.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 20 November and 2 December 2024. The landlord provided another stage 1 response on 6 December 2024. It acknowledged a complaint received 24 June 2024 [sic], offered £50 compensation for the late response and apologised. The resident was caused time and trouble in having to escalate her complaint and did not receive a response for 5 and a half months.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 3 January 2025. She asked this Service to intervene, and we wrote to the landlord on 27 February 2025 to ask that it provide a stage 2 response. The landlord responded on 7 March 2025. This was 2 months after the resident submitted her stage 2 complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £100 compensation for complaint handling issues. It failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity. It did not show that it had learnt lessons from these failures or the steps it would take to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation to the resident for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above. This is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £1,120. This is made up of:
  1. £770 already offered by the landlord in its complaint responses for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its damp, mould and complaint handling failures.
  2. £250 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to complete associated works to the kitchen worktop, roof and pointing.
  3. £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  4. The £770 offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses can be deducted if already paid.
3. write to the resident with an action plan for the outstanding repairs. This should include:
  1. an explanation of the access required for repairs to take place.
  2. timescales, which should then be adhered to.
  3. a copy of this should be shared with this Service.
4. share a written risk assessment with the resident and this Service considering the resident’s health concerns and explaining whether temporary accommodation is required while the outstanding repairs are carried out.
5. share evidence of the above with this Service.