London Borough of Newham (202401736)

Decision
Case ID	202401736
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Newham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	5 December 2025

Background

The property was a terraced house that was converted to 2 flats. The leaseholder’s flat is on the ground floor and basement with the other flat above. The leaseholder rents out the property. The leaseholder raised concerns to the landlord, which is the freeholder, in 2023 about water ingress to the property.

What the complaint is about

The leaseholder’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the drainage system.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of:
1. Repairs to the drainage system.
2. The associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not complete repairs to the drainage system for over a year, so the leaseholder arranged for work to be carried out. The landlord has not responded to the leaseholder’s request to be reimbursed for 50% the cost of the external works. It has also not provided information about how the leaseholder could make a claim with its public liability insurance.
The landlord did not respond to the complaint within its timeframes. Its response did not address all of the issues raised by the leaseholder.

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	Take specific action The landlord must provide the leaseholder with information about how to make a claim on the landlord’s public liability insurance. This information must be provided to the leaseholder by the due date.	No later than 14 January 2026
2	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the leaseholder for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. 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 14 January 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the leaseholder £2,325 (including the £50 previously offered) made up as follows: £1,925 for half of the cost the leaseholder paid for external repairs. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the drainage system. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.	No later than 14 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 June 2023	The leaseholder contacted the landlord to report water damage, damp, and mould at the property. He said the issues were caused by defective exterior downpipes and guttering.
13 February 2024	The leaseholder raised a formal complaint with the landlord. He said: He reported water ingress from outside in June 2023, but the landlord had not addressed it. There was serious damage and damp in the basement, which posed a health risk to tenants. He could not repair internal damage until the external issues were resolved, which he said were the landlord’s responsibility.
17 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response but sent it to the property address rather than the leaseholder’s address, so he did not receive it initially. The response stated: It apologised for the breakdown in communication. An appointment was scheduled for 16 May 2024 to complete works to the external pipework and drain at the rear of the property. The leaseholder was responsible for works needed in the basement. It offered £50 compensation for the delays.
1 July 2024	The leaseholder notified the landlord that he had got a quote for the external works required to stop water ingress. He intended to proceed within 7 days and would then ask the landlord to reimburse him for 50% of the cost.
30 July 2024	Following contact from the leaseholder, this Service asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response by 3 September 2024.
27 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: The complaint was partially upheld. Some drainage works had been completed. An inspection that day indicated moisture levels indicating leaks inside the property and water ingress from outside. It recommended the leaseholder check for internal leaks to rule them out as a source of damp. It would carry out a CCTV drainage survey to identify defects and complete repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The leaseholder brought his complaint to us as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. He said: The building insurer accepted part of his claim for internal damage but advised repairs should wait until external works were completed. The landlord failed to complete the external works, so he paid approximately £4,000 to have them done. The estimated cost to repair internal damage was £50,000, as the basement damage was severe and delays were causing structural issues. The council, who is also the landlord (freeholder), were considering taking away his license to rent the property out, due to its condition.
April 2025	The leaseholder confirmed the internal refurbishment was completed in April 2025. There have been no signs of water ingress, damp, or mould since. The insurer paid for some of the basement refurbishment. The leaseholder wants the landlord to share the cost he paid for basement repairs and drainage 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 repairs to the drainage system
Finding	Maladministration

The lease states the landlord is responsible to maintain and repair the external parts of the building, while the leaseholder is responsible for the interior of the flat. The leaseholder contributes a proportionate share of expense for repairs, maintenance, and insurance of the building through a service charge.
The leaseholder pays for building insurance through his service charge. When the tenant reported damp and mould, the leaseholder contacted the building insurer, which inspected the property. The insurer found:
1. Defective seals around the bath and taps, which allowed water to escape and run below the hallway floor.
2. A blocked drain at the rear of the property, causing flooding and water ingress. The report recommended that the landlord appoint a drainage contractor to address the drainage problems.
The leaseholder arranged to fix the defective seals around the bath and taps in October 2023. The insurer advised the external issues causing water ingress needed to be resolved before internal damage could be repaired and claimed under the building insurance. The leaseholder and the insurer shared the report and its recommendations with the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs records show a job was raised in August 2023 to inspect the downpipes and gulley area in the rear of the building and to quote for any works needed. The records are unclear, as they show the job status as both ‘cancelled’ and ‘completed’ on 11 August 2023.
In December 2023 the landlord agreed to complete a CCTV survey of the building’s drainage system. Further jobs were raised and cancelled. There was a short issue with tenants not allowing access, which was resolved promptly. Most of the drainage system could have been accessed without entering the flat. The landlord inspected in January 2024 and said it needed to repair or replace the rainwater hopper, but it did not complete the CCTV survey. This was not reasonable because it had committed to doing so and could not be sure that it had identified all of the issues.
The leaseholder continued to raise concerns about the outstanding drainage works. The landlord said it would carry out a CCTV survey and fix any issues identified. Repair records state the landlord completed some gutter works in May and June 2024 and that a CCTV survey was done. The landlord later confirmed that no CCTV survey had been completed and that it had confused the property with another address on the same street. The evidence suggested that the works recorded were also for a different property, as the leaseholder obtained a quote in July 2024 for drainage repairs, which he likely would not have done if the landlord had completed the works.
On 1 July 2024 the leaseholder notified the landlord that he had obtained a quote for external drainage works and intended to proceed within 7 days. He asked the landlord to pay 50% of the cost. The landlord did not respond, and the leaseholder proceeded with the works, paying an invoice of £3,850. Despite repeated requests for reimbursement, the landlord has not responded. This was a failing because it had an opportunity to explain its position when it was told about the quote and before the leaseholder arranged the works. It then had further opportunities to confirm its position when the leaseholder asked for partial reimbursement.
The evidence shows the landlord did not maintain a complete and up-to-date understanding of the situation at the property. It provided an inspection report from August 2024 that recorded high moisture readings and suggested the cause was both internal and external factors. This was despite inspections completed in 2023 by the insurer and the internal leaks and drainage issues being resolved by that time, although the property was still drying out. Furthermore, despite the leaseholder arranging drainage works in July 2024 and confirming there had been no water ingress or signs of damp since, the landlord continued to state that it would carry out a CCTV survey, including in its response to this service in January 2025. This indicates poor record-keeping by the landlord, which contributed to delays and caused frustration for the leaseholder.
After the drainage issues were resolved in July 2024, the leaseholder waited for the property to dry and began basement repairs in early 2024, completing them in April 2025. He claimed on the building insurance, which paid for a large portion of the works.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the drainage system, as it did not resolve the issue and the leaseholder had to arrange repairs himself. This had a significant impact on the leaseholder because he:
1. Spent over a year chasing the landlord to fix the drainage issues.
2. Was delayed in starting basement repairs.
3. Was concerned the council would revoke his license to rent the property.
4. Paid the full cost of external drainage repairs.
The leaseholder incurred costs for internal repairs not covered by the building insurance. He asked for approximately £10,000 to be considered in this investigation, as the damage may have been caused by both internal leaks and water ingress due to drainage problems.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine liability for property damage. However, we can assess whether the landlord provided correct information and advice in line with its policies. The landlord did not respond to the leaseholder regarding direct costs for the internal damage. It should have referred him to its public liability insurance for any damage he believed was the landlord’s responsibility. We have ordered the landlord to provide information on how to make a claim under its public liability insurance.
The landlord offered the leaseholder £50 in compensation for delays. Given the extent of the delays and the impact to the leaseholder, we find this amount to be insufficient. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £300 (including the £50 previously offered) for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of drainage repairs.
There are 2 flats in the building, and the lease says that the leaseholder is responsible for his share of works. We asked the landlord to confirm whether the leaseholder’s share is 50%, but it has not provided this information. It is reasonable to assume that he pays approximately 50% of the service charges, as the flats are similar in size. The landlord is both the freeholder and the leaseholder for the other flat.
We find it fair and reasonable for the landlord to reimburse the leaseholder £1,925 (50% of the external works cost). The landlord had over a year to fix the drainage problems and failed to do so, which delayed internal repairs. It then failed to confirm its position on the leaseholder’s request for reimbursement, although he had told it about his intention before arranging the work.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The leaseholder raised a complaint on 13 February 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint and both the leaseholder, and this Service had to chase for a response. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 April 2024, which was outside its policy timeframes. The response was sent to the property address rather than the leaseholder’s correspondence address, so he did not receive it until this Service intervened.
On 30 July 2024 we asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 response by 3 September 2024, as the leaseholder continued to express dissatisfaction and the complaint had not been escalated. It was not reasonable that we had to intervene for the leaseholder to receive responses at both stages. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 August 2024.
In both responses, the landlord failed to fully investigate and address the concerns raised. The stage 2 response included information from a recent inspection after the leaseholder had arranged drainage repairs himself, showing a lack of awareness of what works had been carried out.
Due to delays and the failure to fully address the issues raised, we have found maladministration. The landlord’s complaint handling caused frustration for the leaseholder, as his attempt to resolve the concerns were not progressing and he felt the landlord was not listening to him.
To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures, we have ordered it to pay £100 in compensation to the leaseholder. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for complaint handling failures.

Learning

Record keeping and communication

The repair records were unclear and contained errors, including information about another property. This is an area the landlord could improve on to ensure outstanding repair needs are tracked and addressed.
Communication with the leaseholder was poor, leaving him to repeat the same information without receiving specific responses. There were several missed opportunities for the landlord to resolve issues by listening to the leaseholder and taking reasonable action.