Southwark Council (202326930)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326930

Southwark Council

4 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of a leak from a flat above and the resulting damage to his kitchen ceiling and sink.
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident was a secured tenant of the landlord. The property in question is a ground floor studio flat.
In February 2022, the resident reported a leak from the empty flat above. The repair logs state that this was resolved. Around 16 months later the resident reported that his kitchen ceiling had collapsed and it had damaged his sink. This was found to be caused by a leak from the flat above. According to the records, in the first part of July 2023 the landlord completed some temporary repairs to the ceiling and sink. It also traced and stopped the leak.
The resident complained on 23 August 2023. He said:
1. he had reported a leak from above 15 months prior and the landlord had not repaired it properly at the time.
2. the landlord’s operatives were unable to complete the repairs to his ceiling and sink.
3. it was still leaking when it rained.
4. he wanted the repairs to be completed urgently and to be compensated for:
  1. the stress caused.
  2. 5 days loss of pay to accommodate visits from the landlord.
  3. costs of eating out because he was unable to use the kitchen.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 5 September 2023, it said:
1. it attempted to complete a repair to the ceiling within its emergency timescale on the day the resident reported the leak but its operative was unable to gain access or contact him.
2. the ceiling was made safe on 1 July 2023, the sink was unblocked, and a waste pipe refitted on 8 July 2023.
3. it had appointed a roofing contractor to investigate the cause of the leak.
4. it could only carry out permanent repairs to the ceiling and sink when the leak had been fixed.

The landlord signposted the resident to claim under his content’s insurance or through its own cover for his “personal belongings” and provided a link to its website explaining how.

The resident responded on 11 September 2023 because he said he wanted to “correct a few things.” He later asked to escalate his complaint on 23 September 2023. He said his reasons were:
1. he disagreed with the landlord’s version of events because he said:
  1. he was not given enough notice to be present for the emergency appointment on 30 June 2023.
  2. the operative did not unblock the sink or refit a waste pipe.
2. he was claiming for the costs he had incurred and not damage to his personal belongings.
3. a roofer who inspected on 21 September 2023 had not fixed the leak because they indicated it was a plumbing issue and he had then lost 6 days’ pay in total.
On 25 October 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it believed the matter was now resolved. It advised this was because the repairs to a sink and other minor repairs to the flat above were completed on 6 October 2023.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he said the landlord’s response was not factual. He said the landlord had not fixed the leak or completed repairs to his ceiling and sink. The resident advised that he had been affected in the following ways:
1. he felt he had been “ignored” by the landlord.
2. he had been caused worry about the possibility of further damage to his property from the leak.
3. he was unable to use his kitchen.
4. had lost pay and incurred other expenses.

The resident said he was seeking the repairs to his ceiling and sink to be completed and to be compensated. Sadly, the resident died in May 2024, a few months after referring his complaint to us. A representative is continuing his complaint. The landlord confirmed to this Service in August 2024 that the repairs to the resident’s property were still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Handling of leak and associated repairs

The resident said in his initial complaint that he believed his ceiling collapsed because the landlord had failed to fix a leak he had reported 15 months prior. Neither of the landlord’s complaint responses addressed this specifically, which was inappropriate. We will comment on the standard of the responses in more detail later in the report.
According to the repair logs the landlord fixed a leak from the heating system of the flat above the resident’s property on 12 February 2022. There are no records, that we have seen, of the resident reporting a recurrence of the leak in the 16 months that passed. As such, we have seen no reason to doubt the repair logs. The evidence then shows the landlord acted appropriately in identifying and fixing the problem causing the leak in 2022.
On 30 June 2023, the resident reported that his kitchen ceiling had collapsed. He also reported his sink had been damaged and blocked. The landlord’s repair logs show it raised repairs for the ceiling as an emergency and the sink was classed as urgent. Nothing in the available records indicates that the resident reported or the landlord knew that the damage was caused by a leak from the flat above. As such, it is not an indication of a failing in this case that no instruction was raised to investigate for a leak at that time.
According to the landlord’s repairs policy, it aimed to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. It classed a temporary repair to a collapsed ceiling in a kitchen as an emergency. The policy states urgent repairs, including blocked sinks, would be resolved within 3 working days. It also states that repairs are usually between the hours of 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday.
The repair logs show that the landlord:
1. made the ceiling safe on 1 July 2023.
2. unblocked the resident’s sink, refixed a waste pipe, and left it in working order on 8 July 2023 (a Saturday).
3. raised jobs for repairs for the ceiling to be replastered and sink basin/worktop to be replaced.
The records show that the landlord met its emergency timescale in making the ceiling safe, which was appropriate given the nature of the damage. It though exceeded its service standard for the sink by 3 working days. However the evidence shows the appointment was scheduled around the resident’s availability. It was reasonable and in line with the approach outlined in the repairs policy for the landlord to complete temporary repairs. We will comment on the resident’s challenge to the work the landlord said had been completed to the sink later in this report.
Based on the available records, the first reference to the landlord being aware of a leak from the flat above, after the 2022 repair, was on 8 July 2023. This was at the appointment to unblock the sink. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that its operative believed the leak was caused by a problem with the roof. However, there is no evidence, that we have seen, this was the case. The landlord raised an instruction for a plumber to trace and fix the leak. This was classed as an urgent issue, which was reasonable given there was no indication the leak was causing flooding, which the repair policy classes as an emergency problem. The records state a leaking tap connector was repaired on 12 July 2023, within the required timescale. The evidence, therefore, shows that the landlord acted appropriately in identifying and repairing the problem it believed was the cause of the leak into the resident’s home. But the landlord’s response to this aspect in the complaints process was factually incorrect.
After the leak was repaired, the landlord would be expected to progress the outstanding repairs in line with its policy timescales. The repairs policy states this was 20 working days for non-urgent issues. The records show the landlord left a voicemail on 2 August 2023 about booking an appointment. This was 15 working days after the leak was fixed. While we have seen no evidence that the resident returned the landlord’s call, we would expect to see it made further attempts to complete the repairs. And there are no records that it did. It is a failing that it cannot demonstrate that it was making reasonable efforts to progress the outstanding repairs and to meet its repair timescales.
In his complaint, the resident reported that there was still a leak happening when it rained. The landlord acted appropriately in appointing a roofer to inspect for repairs. The inspection took place on 21 September 2023. According to the records, this was scheduled around the resident’s availability, which he advised was limited because of his work commitments. We cannot then hold the landlord responsible for the delay in inspecting the roof.
The roofers report said the resident showed them where he believed the leak was coming from. It said this was through the kitchen ceiling and that above it was the kitchen of the upstairs flat. The roofer also reported that there had been “torrential rain” the night before the inspection but the resident had said there had been no leak. It recommended a plumber investigate instead.
In his email requesting the landlord to escalate his complaint, the resident said the roofer “had done nothing”. We recognise his frustration with the situation. However, the landlord’s repair policy states that some issues require an inspection first. So, it was not unreasonable that there was no repair completed at that time. We also recognise leaks into a home can sometimes be challenging to identify and may require further investigation before any repairs are attempted.
According to the repair logs, the landlord raised an instruction for a plumber to investigate the source of the leak on 22 September 2023. An operative attended on 27 September 2023 but was unable to access the property, for reasons that are unclear. It then scheduled an appointment with the resident for 10 October 2023. The landlord said in its stage 2 response, from late October 2023, that it was satisfied the issue had been resolved. However, we are unable to establish from the available evidence that the planned appointment went ahead. And if so, whether any repairs were completed. The resident said in an email to the landlord, sent on the day of the appointment, that the operative attended. But that they were unable to inspect the flat above because they did not have keys. It is a failing that the landlord cannot evidence that it met its repair obligations. It also missed an opportunity to investigate the resident’s report that the leak was unresolved in the complaints process.
The resident said in his email from 11 September 2023, challenging the landlord’s account of the repair’s history, that the sink waste had not been fixed. He also reported in his email asking for his complaint to be escalated and that his kitchen was “unsafe and unusable”. The stage 2 response from late October 2023 did not address these issues. This was inappropriate, particularly given the nature of his reports. In the circumstances, we would expect to see the landlord had investigated the resident’s concerns. This may have, for example, involved appointing another plumber or a repair manager to inspect his sink.
After the complaint process ended, the resident emailed the landlord on 25 October 2023. He reported that the leak was still not fixed and he was still unable to use his kitchen. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this, which was inappropriate. The landlord advised us that it should have been passed to a repairs manager to book an appointment. It is a failing that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s email. We can understand why this left him feeling as though the landlord was ignoring him. It is also a failing that it made no attempts to schedule the outstanding repairs. This contributed to the resident living with unresolved issues for longer than he should have been.

Response to request to be compensated

The resident asked to be compensated for 5 days’ loss of pay, costs of eating out, and stress of his living situation. According to the landlord’s complaints policy, it will not consider compensating someone where:
1. there has been no service failing identified.
2. the tenant could recover costs through an insurance claim.

Its compensation policy allows for payments of £50 for missed appointments and to reimburse costs arising from its service failure.

The landlord did not specifically address this request in either of its responses, which was inappropriate. Its decision, however, to not award compensation was in line with its approach because it said it had not found any service failings.
In the stage 1 response, it signposted the resident to claim for his personal belongings through his content’s insurance or its insurer. It was not unreasonable to advise the resident that he could make a claim because he may have been able to make a personal injury claim for his losses. However, the landlord’s reference to personal belongings was factually incorrect and caused confusion. It also later contradicted itself in its response to the resident’s 11 September 2023 email querying its reply to this aspect. In this it said could consider compensating him if he provided further information about any missed appointments. While this was technically correct, it was not well explained and should also have been included in the initial response. Overall, we find the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be compensated was poor.

Conclusion- leak and repairs

The landlord did not identify failings in its service that we have. This was that it:
1. cannot evidence it fully investigated the report of a leak in 2023.
2. was not proactive about arranging appointments to complete the outstanding repairs.
3. failed to investigate the resident’s reports that he was unable to use his kitchen and about the standard of the work to the sink.
The failings also continued after the complaint process ended because the landlord did not refer the matter to its repair manager. The landlord’s failings would understandably have caused the resident avoidable distress from the worry of his living situation. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration and have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident’s estate.
Our approach to awarding compensation is outlined in our guidance on remedies. This says that we will not order a landlord to reimburse someone for loss of earnings for allowing routine appointments. This is because it is a condition of a resident’s tenancy agreement to allow access for repairs. It is also true that repairs are often unavoidable and it is expected that a resident would be required to tolerate a level of inconvenience while the issue was being investigated and addressed. The landlord’s policy also states it will only consider reimbursing costs if they arise from its service failure.
There was no clear evidence, that we have seen, of any missed appointments. Or that the appointments were unnecessary. Further, there was no independent evidence that the kitchen was unusable. However, we acknowledge that the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s report and have factored this into our award for the distress caused. We have not though ordered it to compensate for the costs the resident said he incurred because of the lack of evidence to link these to a service failure.
In March 2024, we found serious failings in the landlord’s handling of a leak and the associated repairs (202210574). While the circumstances of that case differed, there were some similar themes to those found in this complaint. In the previous case we made a wider order under 54.f. of the Scheme for it to review its repair handling practices and to look for learning to help it prevent it happening again. It has since complied with this. We have therefore not made any orders for the landlord to improve its repairs service to avoid duplication. However, we expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time states it aimed to respond within 15 working days at stage 1. If a resident said they were dissatisfied with the outcome it would then review its decision at stage 2. The landlord aimed to respond within 25 working days at the review stage. This was broadly in line with the timescales set in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code). The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and to provide a better service to residents.
On 23 August 2023, the resident made a formal complaint. The landlord responded 8 working days later, on 5 September 2023. As such, it met its stage 1 timescale. The resident then expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 11 September 2023. He disagreed with parts of the landlord’s account of what had happened and said it had not addressed his request to be compensated for loss of earnings. It should then have, according to its complaints policy, escalated the matter to stage 2. While it did respond on the same day advising him to provide specific dates and job reference numbers for missed appointments, it did not escalate to stage 2.
It was not unreasonable for the landlord to ask for more information. However, it was inappropriate not to escalate the complaint until the resident asked it to on 23 September 2023. He did so without providing the information previously requested, which shows this was not a requirement for the complaint to be reviewed. It was a failing therefore that the landlord did not follow its process and in doing this delayed the final response. The landlord did, however, respond in 22 working days, on 23 September 2023, of the resident’s request to escalate. This was within its published timescale, which was appropriate.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will:
1. address all the issues raised.
2. explain the relevant policy/procedure or level of service it provides.
3. give a clear decision on whether the complaint has been upheld.

These principles were in line with the Code.

The initial response addressed some of the resident’s concerns about the response to his recent report of the leak. However, it did not cover all the issues, such as the resident’s report that the leak had not been fixed 15 months earlier. It also failed to refer to any of the relevant service standards. As such, it did not adequately explain if the resident’s concerns were justified. The landlord did not address the resident’s specific request to be compensated for loss of earnings. Nor did it give an overall decision on whether the complaint had been upheld. Therefore, the quality of the stage 1 fell significantly short of its own standards and that of the Code.
The landlord repeated the same mistakes at stage 2. It also failed to demonstrate that it had reviewed the stage 1 decision in light of the resident’s concerns. The response also included a factual error about when the appointment with the plumber happened. Its explanation that the issue had been resolved was vague and it was unclear on what evidence it had relied on to reach this conclusion. As such, the quality of the final response was also poor and a departure from required standards. It was also a missed opportunity to investigate the resident’s complaint that he was unable to use his sink.

Conclusion- associated complaint

We have seen that the landlord followed some of the required processes and timescales from its complaints policy and the Code. However, the standard of the investigation and the responses were poor. Both overlooked issues the resident raised and how he said he had been affected. The complaint handling failings likely added to the resident’s opinion that the landlord ignored him and would have therefore caused him avoidable distress. We have ordered that the landlord pays compensation.
The Code became a legal requirement from 1 April 2024, after the complaints process in this case ended. This means that landlords are obligated by law to follow it. Therefore, no order in relation to learning has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of a leak from the flat above and the resulting damage to his kitchen ceiling and sink.
2. associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed the following actions:
1. paid the resident’s estate £600, made up of:
  1. £400 for the distress caused to the resident by the repair failings.
  2. £200 for the distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.