Southwark Council — case 202451951

Decision Case ID 202451951 Decision type Investigation Landlord Southwark Council Landlord type Local Authority Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 09 February 2026 Background The resident told the landlord about repair issues which she believed were required in the property. This included the presence of mould, which she believed was having an effect on her daughter’s health. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Response to the resident’s concern about a kitchen cupboard. Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about a kitchen cupboard There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Damp and mould The landlord failed to carry out the required works to address the mould in line with the timeframes set out in its repairs policy.

It failed to demonstrate it had considered the health concerns raised by the resident. Kitchen cupboard The landlord’s communication was poor and failed to tell the resident that its contractor had concluded the work to a kitchen cupboard could not be completed. Complaint handling The landlord in part acted reasonably when it offered compensation for its delayed stage 1 complaint response. However, it failed to consider all aspects of the resident’s complaint via its internal complaints process.

This was a failure to adhere to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 09 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £915 compensation. This is made up as follows: £500 for the effect of its failures in its response to the damp and mould.

£265 for the effect of its failures in its response to the cupboard repair. £150 for complaint handling failures. If it has already paid £215 compensation it offered as part of its complaints process, it should pay the remaining balance of £700. The landlord should provide documentary evidence that it has paid the compensation to the resident. No later than 09 March 2026 3 Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a damp and mould inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date.

If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the property for damp and mould, particularly in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether there is any damp and mould. The most likely cause of any damp and mould.

Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve any identified issues together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the damp and mould (if the landlord is responsible). ·he likely timescales to commence and complete any work. No later than 09 March 2026 4 Action order The landlord must contact the resident to see if she would like it to consider her complaint about the panelling behind the bathroom taps.

No later than 09 March 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 17 December 2024 The resident made a complaint to the landlord and said as follows: Panelling behind her bathroom taps had rotted. She said the landlord had told her it was her responsibility to replace this panelling. She disagreed and said the landlord had put the panelling there. A contractor had damaged the bath panel during works. This had not been replaced. The back panel of the cupboard under her kitchen sink had been removed by the landlord but not replaced.

There was a smell of mould from the kitchen cupboard. 18 December 2024 The landlord acknowledged the complaint. 9 January 2025 The landlord told the resident it needed more time to respond to the complaint. It aimed to do so by 17 January 2025. 24 February 2025 The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It said as follows: It acknowledged there had been delays to carry out repairs, a missed appointment on 20 December 2024 and poor communication. It acknowledged it needed to have more robust monitoring of its contractors and better communication.

It apologised for the delayed complaint response. Kitchen cupboard panel A contractor had attended on 10 May 2024 to refit the panel which had been removed to access pipework. Follow-on work was arranged for 17 June 2024, however, access could not be gained. It noted it did not have evidence its contractor had called the resident at the time they had tried to gain access. It apologised. It had subsequently arranged to carry out the work on 20 December 2024 but its contractor had failed to attend.

It attended on 27 December 2024 and the repairs record noted the unit had been overhauled. As the resident had indicated her dissatisfaction in her complaint, it had booked another appointment for 24 February 2025 to complete the boxing in works. Mould It had raised a job for mould treatment on 29 November 2024. It carried this out on 5 February 2025. Its contractor had found the bedroom radiator needed to be removed to carry out mould cleaning. It had arranged to remove the radiator on 25 March 2025.

It would then complete the mould wash behind the radiator and refit the radiator on 26 March 2025. Conclusion It offered a total of £215 compensation, made up as follows: £50 for the missed appointment. £50 for repair delays. £50 for time and trouble. £15 for service failure. £50 for the late complaint response. 25 February 2025 The resident escalated her complaint and said as follows: There was a white substance coming from the wall on the balcony, which led to her daughter’s room.

She asked for a surveyor to inspect her daughter’s room for mould as she did not feel mould washes were a permanent solution. She asked for new bathroom tiles as she believed there was mould behind the tiles. The landlord had not told her of an appointment on 24 February 2025 or when this had been rearranged for. 20 March 2025 The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It said as follows: It had asked for the white substance to be inspected during the damp and mould work appointment on 26 March 2025.

It had arranged to re-grout the bathroom tiles. This would be completed by 11 April 2025. It had carried out inspections on 11 December 2024 and 7 January 2025. The inspections had found poor ventilation and clothes being dried on radiators. It had provided advice about how to reduce damp and has replaced the extractor fans. It had carried out a mould wash and had taken steps to tackle the mould. It apologised for the delay to respond to the complaint. It said this was due to capacity issues.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident referred her complaint to us and said as follows: Her daughter had been ill due to damp and mould. She said the mould wash was only a temporary solution and stains were coming back through the paint in her daughter’s room. The kitchen boxing in had not been done. The landlord had not replaced the bathroom tiles. She requested further compensation for the poor communication and taking time off work for appointments. The landlord had not replaced rotten panels near her bathroom taps.

What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould Finding Maladministration What we have not investigated Within her complaint the resident raised a concern about the bath panel having been damaged by a contractor.

The landlord responded to this at stage 1 of its complaints procedure and replaced the bath panel. The resident did not escalate this aspect of complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. As this aspect of complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, we are not able to consider this aspect of complaint. The resident believes that her daughter’s physical health has been affected by damp and mould. We do not investigate complaints where it would be fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through a court.

In this case, we cannot make a determination as to whether the landlord’s actions or inactions impacted the resident’s daughter’s health. This is a matter only a court has the ability to decide upon. For this reason, we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her daughter’s health. What we have investigated The landlord carried out a mould wash in the bathroom on 14 May 2024. The resident confirmed in June 2024 that the mould had not returned.

There was a gap in the evidence we been provided until the resident told the landlord on 28 November 2024 that there was mould on the bathroom tiles and in her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out a damp and mould inspection within 20 working days of such a report. The landlord acted in line with the timeframe of its policy and carried out an inspection on 4 December 2024. This found as follows: Bedroom 1 – mould behind the radiator. Bathroom – mould on the ceilings and walls.

Living room- mould behind the wallpaper. The extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom did not work properly. It recommended the following work: Regrouting the bathroom tiles. Mould wash. New extractor fans. The landlord provided advice to the resident about not drying clothes on radiators and ways to improve ventilation. This was reasonable advice to offer in light of the mould behind the radiator which its surveyor believed had been caused by drying clothes on the radiator.

The landlord subsequently replaced the extractor fans on 7 January 2025. Its repairs policy says that kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, which do not work, will be treated as an urgent repair and completed within 3 working days. The landlord failed to replace the extractor fans within this stated timescale. In addition, we have not been provided with evidence to demonstrate the landlord considered the treatment of the mould as a priority after it had been confirmed by its surveyor and due to the health concerns the resident had reported.

We have not seen any evidence the landlord acknowledged it had failed to follow its repairs policy to replace the extractor fans. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 5 February 2025. This was over 2 months from when it raised the request on 29 November 2024. This was around double the 20 working day response timeframe stated in its repairs policy. The landlord failed to acknowledged that it had taken too long to carry this out. There was a requirement for the landlord to remove the bedroom radiator to carry out a mould wash behind it.

This was not arranged until 26 March 2025, around 4 months after the resident’s initial report. The landlord provided no explanation for this delay. Within her escalation request, the resident raised a new concern about a white substance on the balcony wall, which she believed could be linked to damp and mould. Within its stage 2 response the landlord committed to inspect this during the appointment on 25 and 26 March 2025 for the mould works. This was reasonable given the existing appointment and that this issue had not been raised before.

However, the resident told us in February 2026 that this issue has not been resolved and her daughter’s bedroom wall remains wet. Within both of its complaint responses, the landlord set out the steps it had taken to tackle the damp and mould. However, it did not identify any failures in how it had responded to the damp and mould. As such, it failed to learn from the complaint or put things right. To acknowledge the effect of the combined failures on the resident, we have ordered £500 compensation.

This is in line with a range suggested by our remedies guidance where there were failures which had an adverse effect on a resident. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about a kitchen cupboard. Finding Maladministration The back of the resident’s under-sink kitchen cupboard was removed due to an unrelated repair issue. A contractor attended on 10 May 2024 to refit the back panel of the cupboard. We have not been provided with any notes on the repairs log as to what work, if any was carried out at the time.

The landlord subsequently arranged follow-on works for June 2024.The contractor told the landlord it couldnot gain access to the property on the occasion of the appointment. There was a gap in the correspondence we have been provided until the resident told the landlordon 28November 2024 and 17 December 2024 that the cupboard panel had not been replaced. The landlord arranged to attend on 20 December 2024 but its contractor failed to do so. The contractor subsequently attended on 27 December 2024 andtold the landlord the work had been completed.

Within its stage 1 response of 24 February 2025, the landlord acknowledged and apologised that its contractor had not tried to call the resident when it could not gain access. It advised the resident it had arranged for the works to be completed that same day. The resident subsequently said the landlord had not told her about the appointment for 24 February 2025. In addition, we have not been provided with evidence the landlord attended as it advised. In an internal email from March 2025, the landlord chased the contractor about the work.

The contractor told the landlord it could not put a panel at the back of the kitchen cupboard due to rearranged pipework. It is not clear why it took the contractor from May 2024 to March 2025 to tell the landlord that the requested work could not be completed. Although the landlord had tried to arrange this work on a number of occasions, its repairs records lacked the relevant details as to what contractors had concluded during prior appointments. Despite the contractor’s advice to the landlord about its inability to conduct the repair, we have not been provided with any evidence the landlord told the resident the work would not be carried out.

It therefore missed an opportunity to be transparent with her and manage her expectations that thework could not be completed. Within its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged some of its failures. It offered a total of £165 compensation for the combined effect of the missed appointment, repair delays and the resident’s time and trouble. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.

In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. Although the landlord’s offer of compensation went some way to try to put things right, the landlord did not inform the resident that the repair would not be carried out. As such, the compensation offered cannot be said to have put things right for the resident.

To acknowledge the impact of the additional failures we have identified, we have ordered an additional £100 compensation. This brings the total compensation to £265. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It’s complaints policy says at stage 1, it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then aims to respond at stage 1 within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days.

These response timeframes mirror the timeframes in the Code. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 1 working day. It told the resident on 9 January 2025 that it needed more time to respond to the complaint. It aimed to do so by 17 January 2025. The landlord failed to respond by this extended timeframe. We have not been provided with evidence that it kept in contact with the resident after its extended deadline had passed. The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 24 February 2025.

This was 45 working days after the acknowledgment. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 February 2025. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 20 March 2025. This was 17 working days and within the timeframe set out in its complaints policy. The Code says that landlord’s should respond to all aspects of complaint. The resident raised concerns about panelling behind her bathroom taps within her original complaint. The landlord did not respond to this concern within either of its complaint responses.

As such, it failed to act in line with the Code. The failure resulted in the resident not having part of her complaint resolved. The landlord apologised for the delay at stage 1 and offered £50 compensation. However, it did not identify that it had failed to respond to all aspects of complaint. As such, the compensation offered for complaint handling cannot be said to have put things right. To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident of the complaint handling failures, we have ordered an additional £100 compensation.

This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £150. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) In regards to the records provided by the landlord in respect of this investigation, it was not always possible to tell the outcome of contractor appointments. The landlord should ensure its repairs logs are detailed and set out the findings of contractors along with work completed. This will ensure effective sharing of information, task management and the opportunity to identify repeat issues within its records.

Communication The resident had to chase the landlord for updates on a number of occasions. The landlord should ensure its communication with residents is proactive and timely. It should also ensure it is transparent in respect of what actions it is not able to carry out. These learning point will help to achieve effective communication and improve the landlord/tenant relationship.