From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Southwark Council (202324588)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324588

Southwark Council

27 August 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 response to the leaseholder’s report of a leak.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident acquired the leasehold title to the property in 2003. The freehold title for the property belongs to the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat that is occupied by private tenants. For the purposes of this report, we have referred to the resident as ‘the leaseholder’.
  2. The leaseholder was informed by her tenants that sewage was leaking from the property into the flat below. After receiving advice from the landlord about her responsibilities under the lease, the leaseholder called a private plumber to the property on 4 March 2023. On 6 March 2023, her plumber established that there was a blockage in the communal stack. She said she attempted to contact the landlord twice on 6 March 2023 and when she could not establish contact, she instructed her plumber to clear the blockage. On 10 March 2023 the leaseholder asked the landlord to reimburse her for the costs she had incurred in hiring the private plumber.
  3. The landlord treated the matter as a complaint and issued its stage 1 response on 4 April 2023. It said it would not reimburse the leaseholder unless it was presented with evidence that it was responsible for the repair. It noted that no blockages had been reported previously and added that if the leaseholder had spoken with it on 6 March 2023, it would have advised her against instructing her plumber to complete the repair
  4. The leaseholder asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 19 April 2023. She explained that she became aware in the afternoon of 6 March 2023, that the issue was a communal repair. She tried to contact the landlord but was unsuccessful. She felt she was in an “impossible” situation because her tenants had no water and there was a risk of further contamination of water into the flat below. She felt her actions were reasonable and responsible under the circumstances.
  5. On 18 October 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It referred to the call of 4 March 2023 where it had advised her it would not pay for the private plumber. It added that during this conversation, it advised the leaseholder to forward the plumber’s report to it. If the report established that the repair related to a communal area, it would send its own plumber to remedy the problem. As such it was satisfied it provided her with the correct information.
  6. The leaseholder referred her complaint to us on 20 October 2023. She informed us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to reimburse her. In particular, she was unhappy that it had not considered the attempts that she had made to try to contact it on 6 March 2023, before instructing the private plumber to proceed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The leaseholder has disputed that she is liable for the costs of the repairs to the communal stack. We cannot make liability decisions or determine whether the landlord was responsible for resolving the blockage in question. Matters of liability are best dealt with either via an insurance claim or through the courts. While we cannot determine liability, we have assessed whether the landlord responded to the leaseholder’s request for a refund appropriately and in accordance with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s report of a leak

  1. A copy of the lease has not been provided. However, in general a lease will usually have standard terms where the landlord will be responsible for communal repairs. The landlord’s leaseholder guide outlines that it is responsible for repairs to communal areas of the estate and the structure of the building, which includes drains and sewers. The landlord has not disputed that it is responsible for the communal stack and the communal pipes.
  2. The landlord’s ‘leaseholder guide’ also explains how leaseholders can report repairs, and it has a dedicated “leaks from above” team. It states that if the leak is from another leaseholder’s flat, it is the leaseholder’s responsibility to ensure the necessary work to fix the leak is carried out as quickly as possible.
  3. When the problem arose, the leaseholder called the landlord for advice on how to proceed. On 4 March 2023 it advised the leaseholder to call her own plumber out to inspect the issue. It explained its procedure for this type of repair during the call. It said if her own plumber determined it to be a “communal issue” the landlord would want to see a plumber’s report and it would investigate the repair itself. It reiterated that it would not pay for the private plumber’s bill, and its procedure was that if the repair was its responsibility, it would send its own operative to look at the issue. It was appropriate for the landlord to outline the procedure at this early stage.
  4. The leaseholder’s plumber attended on 4 March 2023 but could not diagnose the cause of the issue with certainty. They advised a further visit was needed together with a drainage engineer. This was to drain the waste, clear the blockage and try to increase the gradient level of the waste pipe to allow for a more efficient flow of waste.
  5. The leaseholder’s plumber returned on 6 March 2023. In the plumber’s report it is noted that the tenants informed the plumber that the blockage they were tending to had been going on for a long time. This is not apparent from the landlord’s records, and it is noted that during the complaints process, the landlord advised the leaseholder as such. Nevertheless, the leaseholder’s plumber’s investigations of the internal and main stack pipe revealed a build up of baby wipes and lumps of hair. A full descale was recommended. The cost of this appointment was £1,398.
  6. It was appropriate, and in accordance with her obligations under the lease, for the leaseholder to instruct her own plumber to investigate the cause of the issues initially. The evidence suggests that on 6 March 2023, the plumber diagnosed that the blockage was in the main stack within the communal area, and therefore outside of the leaseholder’s property. The leaseholder attempted to contact the landlord on 2 occasions during the afternoon of 6 March, before instructing her plumber to carry out the repair. The calls were placed approximately 2 minutes apart. The leaseholder said that both times there was no answer, and the voicemail facility was full so she could not leave a message. She therefore made the decision to instruct her plumber to proceed. The blockage was cleared by the private plumber at a cost of £2257.14. It is understandable that the leaseholder felt pressured to make a quick decision, especially as she was concerned about potentially hazardous waste leaking into another property. In addition, she was concerned that her tenants had been without water for 2 days.
  7. However, given the location of the blockage was identified on 6 March 2023, and the advice the landlord had provided on 4 March, it is unclear why the leaseholder did not make further attempts to contact the landlord. The landlord had previously stated it would not reimburse her for using a private plumber, and as such it would have been reasonable for the leaseholder to consider other appropriate action. While not exhaustive, this could have included continuing to establish contact with the landlord, considering moving her tenants to temporary accommodation or asking her own plumber to make the situation temporarily stable. All of which would reasonably have allowed time for the landlord to consider the plumber’s report and to decide how best to proceed. It is noted that the landlord’s voicemail facility was full.
  8. The evidence demonstrates that the leaseholder was provided with appropriate advice in response to her report of a leak. While we understand her reasons for proceeding with the repair via her private plumber, we have not identified any failing by the landlord in how it responded to her report. For that reason, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s report of a leak.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy, that was in place at the time, states that it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It describes a two-phase approach. At the complaint phase it will respond within 15 working days. At its review phase it will respond in 25 working days.
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines how landlords must respond to complaints. At stage 1, landlords must respond within 10 working days of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord has since updated its complaint handling policy and procedures to align with the Code.
  3. The leaseholder escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 April 2023. She disputed she was responsible for paying for the plumbing work. The landlord acknowledged the request on 17 May 2023 and 12 July 2023 and provided its stage 2 response on 18 October 2023. This was 127 days later and significantly outside of its 25-day target.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its delayed response and offered £50 compensation. While it was reasonable for the landlord to offer some compensation, this was not proportionate in the circumstances. The leaseholder chased for a stage 2 response on 9 occasions after she escalated her complaint to stage 2. She explained that she remained stressed at the lack of progress as it was a large sum in dispute. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to give some further consideration to the circumstances and how the delayed response was affecting the leaseholder. There is no evidence that it did so.
  5. The Code sets out that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for decisions. The leaseholder in her escalation request noted she was unclear what else she should have done in this situation. She stated in another email of 17 October 2023 that she wanted the landlord to confirm what she should have done in this situation where she was unable to get through on the phoneline. The landlord failed to address this issue in its stage 2 response, and it should reasonably have done so.
  6. While the landlord set out its position in terms of its responsibilities in its stage 2 response, it was aware that the leaseholder felt that the landlord was ultimately liable for the cost of clearing the blockage and the repair. While it is noted that the landlord did not consider that it should have to reimburse the leaseholder, it is unclear why it did not refer the matter to its insurer given that liability for the costs was in dispute. This was a failing. We have therefore ordered the landlord to provide the leaseholder with information about claiming via its liability insurer now, or to refer the matter to its insurer itself.
  7. Our investigation has found that the landlord failed to respond to the leaseholder’s complaint in a timely manner. While it appropriately acknowledged the delay, the level of compensation that it offered did not go far enough to put things right. We have also found that the landlord failed to address all of the leaseholder’s concerns and failed to refer the matter to its insurer so that a liability decision could be made accordingly. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s report of a leak.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the leaseholder in writing for the failings identified by our investigation.
    2. Refer the matter to its liability insurer or provide the leaseholder with the relevant details so that she may make a claim directly herself. In the event that the insurer declines to consider the claim owing to the passage of time, the landlord should reconsider the leaseholder’s comments regarding liability for the repair. In doing so, the landlord may wish to request a copy of the private plumber’s report, if it is not already in possession of this, and what it would have cost it to complete the work itself.
    3. Pay the leaseholder £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This includes the £50 previously offered. If the landlord has already paid this amount, it may deduct it from the total accordingly.
  2. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the period set out above.