Southwark Council (202328109)

Decision
Case ID	202328109
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	16 October 2025

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat within a block. Another tenant in the block experienced a leak at their property. The effected property was not near to, attached to or directly underneath the resident’s property. However, the leak was found to come from a communal pipe which serviced the resident’s property. During the time it took the landlord to repair the pipe, the resident chose not to use her washing machine as a way to help the effected tenant. She complained to the landlord and requested compensation as she had dry cleaning expenses as a result of not using her washing machine.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a leak effecting another tenant’s property.
2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak effecting another tenant’s property.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a leak effecting another tenant’s property

The resident chose to not use her washing machine during the time another tenant was experiencing a leak. However, there is no evidence the landlord told her not to use the washing machine, as a means of preventing damage, once it was aware of the leak effecting another property. There was no failing by the landlord. As such its decision not to offer compensation was fair and appropriate in the circumstances

The complaint handling

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 October 2023	The landlord was made aware that a tenant in the block was experiencing a leak.
14 November 2023	The resident raised a complaint. She said that the other tenant was experiencing a leak which could be from a pipe in the resident’s property. The resident complained that the landlord would not send a contractor to check the pipe.
22 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
24 November 2023	A contractor attended to carry out work to the pipework within properties in the block. There were some delays due to access issues at the resident’s property, so it could not complete the arranged appointment.
5 December 2023	The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1. It said because the resident was a leaseholder, a contractor needed to confirm the cause of the issue before the landlord could carry out any work. From the point it knew the pipework was communal and it was responsible, it had arranged a repair. There had been no access at its first visit. As such, it had rearranged the appointment
13 December 2023	The landlord completed the work to the pipe.
14 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said that to help the other tenant and prevent further damage occurring, she had avoided using her washing machine whilst the repair was outstanding. As such, she had taken her washing to the dry cleaners. She asked for compensation for this expense.
15 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
16 January 2024	The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2. It explained it had not known at first if the leak was from a communal pipe. Once it had confirmed it was responsible for fixing the leak, it had completed the repair. It apologised for the time it had taken for the repair to be carried out. However, it said as it had completed the work within a 4 week timeframe, it would not offer compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she thought the landlord had known from the beginning that the effected pipe was communal and therefore the landlord’s responsibility to fix. She was dissatisfied she had spent money at the dry cleaners and that a contractor had damaged her tap during the works.

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 handling of a leak effecting another tenant’s property.
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

We have not considered the resident’s concern about damage caused to her tap during the works. The resident raised the matter of her tap being damaged after her complaint about the leak had exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about the damage to her tap with the landlord. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s information for leaseholders reflects the terms of the resident’s lease. It says that leaseholders are responsible for internal plumbing. The landlord is responsible for communal plumbing and pipework. It will only carry out repairs that it is responsible for.
Where the landlord is responsible for the repair, its repairs policy says that a minor leak, which is not causing serious damage, would be classed as non-urgent. It aims to carry out such repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord was made aware on 25 October 2023 that a tenant in the block was experiencing a leak. The landlord’s contractor noted that the leak was originating from a pipe from the resident’s property. The landlord arranged the repair of the pipe for 24 November 2023. This was 22 working days from the report. Although this was slightly longer than its target timeframe, we have seen evidence that to repair the pipe, the landlord needed to access both the resident’s property and the effected property on the same date. Given the need to arrange a mutually convenient date, this delay was reasonable in the circumstances. We note that the landlord was unable to complete the repair as arranged as there was no access at the resident’s property on the arranged date. We have seen evidence that it had tried to gain access and had left a note in the resident’s door advising her of this.
The landlord re-arranged the appointment and subsequently fixed the leak on 13 December 2023. Based on the evidence we have been provided with, the landlord carried out the non-urgent repair in a timely manner given the circumstances.
The landlord summarised the actions it had taken within its complaint responses. It concluded that it would not offer compensation to the resident to cover the cost of her dry cleaning. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord advised her not to use her washing machine, use her sink or take any other preventative measures while the repair was outstanding.
We appreciate that the resident chose not to use her washing machine based on her belief that this would assist the other tenant. However, the evidence shows this was the resident’s choice to do so. We have not seen any evidence that the resident had told the landlord before her complaint that she had stopped using her washing machine. This was not something the landlord had asked her to do or that the landlord was responsible for.
It is reasonable to assume that if damage had been caused to the other tenant’s property, they would be able to pursue this via the landlord’s insurer or through the landlord’s complaints process. As such, the landlord’s conclusion that it would not offer compensation for the cost of dry cleaning to the resident, was reasonable. It therefore follows that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak effecting another tenant’s property.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time says it will respond within 15 working days at stage 1. At stage 2 it will respond within 25 working days.
The landlord took 15 working days, from 14 November 2023 to 5 December 2023 to respond at stage 1. It subsequently took from 14 December 2023 to 16 January 2024 to respond at stage 2. This was a period of 20 working days. As such, it provided both complaint responses in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.
We have seen that in the stage 2 response the landlord said it had carried out the pipe repair within 4 weeks. This did not correspond to the evidence we have seen which was that the repair took 35 days to be fixed from the date it was reported. However, as noted above, the repair did not go ahead in this timeframe due to the resident being unavailable. The rest of the complaint response was accurate and its overall conclusion that it would not pay compensation was reasonable. As such, the inaccuracy about the length of time taken to complete the repair was an error, which does not amount to service failure. We have therefore concluded there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We have seen that the landlord kept records of contact made with the resident and repair logs. The landlord should ensure that the information relied on in its complaint responses reflect the information in its repair records.

Communication

We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s communication.