London Borough of Lewisham (202415441)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415441

London Borough of Lewisham

30 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak affecting the resident’s home.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder and he lives in a 3 bedroom ground floor flat with his children.
3. On 1 November 2023, the resident reported a leak through the ceiling and walls of 2 bedrooms. He told the landlord he thought it was coming from the balcony of the flat above him. The landlord arranged to inspect.
4. The resident complained on 25 March 2024. He said the leak had not been repaired and the damage to his home was getting worse. He said the landlord’s communication had been “dire”. He wanted it to fix the leak, pay compensation and communicate better.
5. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 18 April 2024. It said it had inspected but sent the wrong contractor. It was sorry for the delay and had raised a new job which was booked for 1 May 2024. It gave details of how the resident could claim from its insurance.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 April 2024. He said the landlord’s response did not address its poor communications, was inaccurate and did not acknowledge the impact on his family.
7. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 29 May 2024 which said it:
   1. Was sorry it had not resolved the leak and explained the delays. It again gave a link for him to claim from its insurance.
   2. Was due to repair a leaking overflow pipe at the flat above on 20 June 2024. It would then arrange repairs to the balcony to resolve the leak into his flat.
   3. Was sorry its stage 1 response had not addressed its communications. It should have kept him better informed and had been slow to arrange follow on repairs. Its response had been late and it should have extended the timescale.
   4. Offered £50 compensation for its handling of the leak.
8. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 July 2024. He said the landlord had not resolved the leak and he was not satisfied with its handling of his complaint. He wanted it to fix the leak, pay compensation and communicate with him better.
9. The leak was repaired around August 2024. The resident now wants the landlord to pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and to improve its handling of repairs.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the leak

10. It is not disputed the landlord was responsible for repairing the leak which affected the resident’s home. The resident’s complaint is that it took too long to do so and did not communicate with him as it should have.
11. The resident’s report of water leaking into his bedrooms on 1 November 2023 said that he thought it was coming from the balcony of the flat above. It was reasonable the landlord wanted to inspect the suspected source of the leak. We understand this meant it needed to arrange access with the neighbour living in the flat above.
12. It raised the inspection against the address of the flat above the resident. This was necessary to make sure its operative inspected the right flat. But it would have been reasonable for it to have told the resident what it had done following his report.
13. Its failure to do so meant the resident chased on 27 November 2023 when he had received no updates since the landlord had initially acknowledged his report. He had to send the landlord a copy of its acknowledgement because it could not trace his report. This would have been because the inspection was raised against a different address.
14. On 30 November 2023, the landlord told the resident it was inspecting the flat above on 13 December 2023. In its later stage 2 response, it said its operative had attended but it was not clear from the job notes if they had checked the balcony. This could suggest the landlord had not given a clear inspection instruction or the operative had not made an accurate note of their inspection.
15. There is no evidence the landlord updated the resident following the inspection. Its failure to do so meant he chased again on 10 January 2024. He said there was still water coming into his flat causing damage and mould.
16. On 18 January 2024, the landlord and resident exchanged multiple emails through which the landlord gained further information about the leak. The landlord said it needed to inspect both flats to see where the water was getting into the resident’s flat as well as where it was leaking from. The landlord could have arranged to inspect the resident’s flat sooner after his initial report.
17. The resident chased the landlord at least 3 times between 23 January 2024 and 29 January 2024. He said he had not heard anything since exchanging emails on 18 January 2024. He said the family could no longer use one of the bedrooms because of the damp and mould caused by the leak. This should have caused the landlord to consider the urgency of its response.
18. On 6 February 2024, the landlord arranged for its plumber to visit both flats on 23 February 2024. After the inspection, the resident emailed the landlord saying the plumber could not resolve the leak but had taken photographs of the damage in his flat and of the balcony above. There is no evidence the landlord responded.
19. Its failure to respond meant the resident chased for an update on 5 March 2024. The landlord told him it would arrange for its roofing contractor to repair the balcony of the flat above.
20. The resident chased for updates on 14 and 22 March 2024. The landlord responded to his first email but did not update him on the repairs. It had not replied to his second email by the time he complained on 25 March 2024. But it did so on 28 March 2024 saying it had not arranged for its roofing contractor to attend after saying it would do so on 5 March 2024. There is no evidence to explain why this occurred.
21. On 11 April 2024, the landlord told the resident its roofing contractor would contact him to book an appointment. In our view, its repair order did not give its contractor sufficient information about the leak. It just said, “roof leaking affecting the flat below from balcony”. It may have helped the contractor to know where the water was getting into the resident’s flat and to have seen the photographs taken by the landlord’s plumber on 23 February 2024.
22. On 16 April 2024, the roofing contractor told the landlord it had visited and found an overflow pipe was leaking onto the balcony above the resident’s flat. It said the leak needed to be fixed before it could repair the balcony and attached photographs from its inspection. The resident also gave the landlord the same information. Both the resident and the contractor asked the landlord to let them know when it had fixed the leak.
23. In its stage 1 response of 18 April 2024, the landlord said it had mistakenly raised the job with its roofing contractor and had now raised a job for a plumber to fix the leaking pipe. This was inaccurate as the contractor’s email explained that both the leaking pipe and balcony needed repair. Other inaccuracies in its response suggest the landlord had not understood the situation with the repairs needed when writing its response.
24. On 19 April 2024, the landlord told the roofing contractor it was due to repair the leaking pipe on 7 June 2024. There is no evidence it told the resident and he chased on 1 May 2024 asking if the leaking pipe had been fixed.
25. The evidence shows the landlord had raised a separate order with its heating contractor to extend an outlet pipe from the boiler in the flat above. Its later stage 2 response explained its plumber had inspected on 1 May 2024 and said the leaking pipe was from the boiler of the flat above and needed to be repaired by the heating contractor.
26. The evidence suggests the 2 separate orders caused confusion which caused the landlord to ask its roofing contractor which pipe was leaking on 24 May 2024.
27. In its stage 2 complaint response of 29 May 2024, the landlord said it would repair the pipe on 20 June 2024 and then arrange the balcony repairs. It also agreed it should have kept the resident better informed and had been slow to arrange follow on repairs.
28. This acceptance did not lead to any noticeable difference in the landlord’s communication with the resident after its final complaint response. There is no evidence it updated him after the appointment on 20 June 2024. This meant the resident chased for an update on 2 July 2024. There is no evidence the landlord responded.
29. Between 11 and 23 July 2024, the resident chased for an update at least 3 times. On 1 August 2024, the landlord told him it thought it had fixed the leaking pipe and would chase the roofing contractor about the balcony repairs. The roofing contractor explained it had repaired the balcony on 26 July 2024 but it was still leaking. It had wanted to do further repairs on 2 August 2024 but had not gained access to the flat above.
30. The contractor did further repairs to the balcony around 13 August 2024. This means it took the landlord over 9 months to complete the repairs needed to stop water leaking into the resident’s home. This was far longer than the 20 working day timescale for completing routine repairs in its Repair Policy.
31. In our view, there were avoidable delays caused by the landlord’s:
    1. Failure to diagnose the causes of the leak from 1 November 2023 until its roofing contractor’s inspection on 16 April 2024.
    2. Lack of oversight of inspections and repairs it had had ordered. The landlord only acted after the resident chased it and there is no evidence of it proactively managing the repairs.
    3. Inadequate communication with its contractors and operatives and its record keeping. Both caused confusion and delay because the landlord did not know which pipe was leaking despite 4 inspections being done between 1 November and 1 May 2024.
32. The time taken to stop water leaking into the resident’s home will have meant the damage to his home and belongings was worse than it should have been. It was a significant failure that the landlord showed no urgency in resolving the disrepair despite knowing the resident could no longer use a bedroom from January 2024.
33. Throughout the events, the landlord failed to keep the resident updated. This caused inconvenience because he had to chase the landlord and often got no response to his emails. The landlord should think about how it can keep residents reporting repairs updated when it needs to raise inspections and orders against a different property.
34. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration. We have ordered it to apologise and pay £1,100 compensation made up of:
    1. £600 for the resident’s loss of enjoyment due to being unable to use one bedroom from 29 January to 13 August 2024.
    2. £300 for his loss of enjoyment of the other bedroom affected by the damp and mould caused by the leak.
    3. £200 For the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused by its handling of the repair from November 2023.
35. The landlord may deduct the £50 it offered in its stage 2 response if it can show it has already paid it.
36. In both its complaint responses, the landlord gave details for making an insurance claim. This was reasonable and gave the resident the opportunity to claim against the landlord for the damage to his home and belongings. The resident told us he had not done so because he had already claimed from his own insurance. It is not necessary for us to make orders relating to this.

Complaint handling

37. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
38. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 25 March 2024 in 3 working days. This was in line with the Code.
39. Its stage 1 response of 18 April 2024 was late because it was given 14 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. While this was not in line with the 10 working day timescale of the Code, there is no evidence the resident was disadvantaged by the delay.
40. However, the stage 1 response was inaccurate regarding the repair situation and failed to address the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s communication with him. This suggests its investigation was not adequate and was not in line with the Code which requires landlords to address all parts of a complaint.
41. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request of 19 April 2024 in 5 working days. This was in line with the Code.
42. It spoke with the resident on 28 May 2024 to extend its stage 2 response timescale. The Code allows landlords to extend the timescale for responding to complaints in exceptional circumstances. This is to help them give a full response to complex complaints. It allows landlords to extend the stage 2 response timescale by no more than 20 working days.
43. It was reasonable the landlord wanted to check its understanding of the repair situation given the resident had said its stage 1 response was not accurate. The emails exchanged with its contractors show it made appropriate enquiries to give an accurate response. Its response extension was in line with the Code as the complaint was complex and the landlord only extended it by 3 working days.
44. The landlord gave its stage 2 response of 29 May 2024 sooner than the extended timescale it had given. It was reasonable it apologised for the delays, agreed it should have kept the resident better informed and acknowledged the delay in giving its stage 1 response. However, it did not explain what had caused the repair delays up to 1 May 2024 which could suggest it had not investigated them. If so, this was a missed opportunity to find out what went wrong and prevent similar failures in future.
45. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because its stage 1 response was inaccurate and did not address all parts of the complaint. We have ordered it to apologise.

Review of policies and practices

46. In this investigation we found failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs and its record keeping. We found similar failings in case 202124577 and made a wider order for it to improve its practices. The landlord complied with our wider order and we will assess the impact of the changes it has made through our future casework.
47. The Ombudsman launched a special investigation into the landlord’s handling of repairs and complaints, and its record keeping on 30 July 2024. We have the powers, under paragraph 49. of the Scheme, to undertake a special investigation beyond an individual complaint to identify common points of failure.
48. We will consider the failings in repair and complaint handling identified in this case as part of our special investigation. We will make recommendations for any improvements the landlord needs to make to its policies and practices through our special investigation.

Determination

49. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak affecting the resident’s home.
50. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

51. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send us evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
52. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and the impact they had on him and his family.
53. Pay the resident £1,100 total compensation made up of:
    1. £600 for the resident’s loss of enjoyment due to being unable to use one bedroom from 29 January to 13 August 2024.
    2. £300 for his loss of enjoyment of the other bedroom affected by the damp and mould caused by the leak.
    3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused by its handling of the repair from November 2023.

The landlord may deduct the £50 it offered in its stage 2 response if it can show it has already paid it.

Recommendations

54. The landlord should think about how it can keep residents reporting repairs updated when it needs to raise inspections and orders against a different property.