London Borough of Lewisham (202432454)

Background

1. The resident moved into his property on 2 January 2024. He said that the landlord was aware he had multiple health conditions such as aquagenic pruritus, sickle cell trait, chronic pain, depression and anxiety. However, the landlord said it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident reported multiples repairs since February 2024. Although the landlord carried out repairs, the resident said some repairs remained outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The repairs in the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs in the property.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The repairs

5. The landlord failed to maintain accurate and complete repair records, which undermined its ability to monitor progress, reschedule appointments, and confirm that it had resolved the issues. In addition, there were significant delays in completing repairs and it did not consistently and effectively communicate with the resident on the works. It also failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and review its handling of the repairs against its repairs policy.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded twice at stage 1, which is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This delayed the complaint process and caused confusion as to the escalation and fair process. Furthermore, the landlord noted this in its internal correspondence but did not acknowledge this failure or remedied it during the formal responses.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The landlord demonstrated that it had inspected the property when it was void and completed the identified repairs in December 2023, before the resident moved in. While the resident reported that the property did not meet its lettable standard, the landlord disputed this. We understand that the resident reported repairs early in his tenancy and would have been disappointed that he needed to, as this affected his experience of moving to a new home. We also recognise that landlords may not always identify every repairs during the void period. In this case, we did not see evidence that the property failed to meet the landlord’s lettable standard or that the landlord failed to address repairs identified during the void period.
8. The resident reported many repairs between February 2024 and November 2024. The need for repairs alone would not automatically constitute a failure on the part of the landlord. However, we would expect the landlord to handle the resident’s reports in keeping with its obligations and repairs policy.
9. The evidence shows that during that period the landlord completed some of the repairs in line with its repairs policy, which requires making a property safe within 24 hours, completing urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routines repairs within 20 working days. It also managed the resident’s expectations about what it would and would not do. For instance:
   1. It replaced the kitchen and bedroom windows as agreed during its void inspection. Although the resident requested for the landlord to replace those again as well as his living room windows, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation for not replacing them. Additionally, following further inspections it replaced the resident’s living room windows because it could no longer repair them.
   2. It repaired the leaking waste pipe within a day of becoming aware of the issue in March 2024.
   3. It also inspected the issues raised by the resident in his April 2024 complaint as agreed. On 20 May 2024 it inspected the property and provided a detailed work schedule to the resident, it then completed remedial repairs 3 days later. For example, it carried out a deep clean of the property, inspected the vents, and filled gaps and holes.
   4. In May 2024 it explained the process for major works and for reviewing the property’s insulation. It provided a reasonable explanation to the resident for not installing additional insulation in the property, renewing the kitchen or the kitchen sink.
   5. It provided a reasonable explanation in its October 2024 complaint responses for not cleaning the vents and not considering soundproofing the property. It explained that vacuuming the vents was the resident’s responsibility and that soundproofing did not fall within the scope of responsive repairs. It further clarified that soundproofing works might be consideredat a later date if major works were undertaken at the property.
10. However, we also identified that the landlord did not respond to several of the resident’s repairs in line with its repairs policy. Examples of these failings are outlined below.
11. There were significant delays in the landlord inspecting the living room and bathroom windows following the resident reports of signs of rot affecting them in February 2024. The evidence shows that the landlord inspected the issues 3 months later, which was unreasonable. Additionally, it did not show that it had effectively communicated with the resident or explained to him the reasons for the delay, which was unreasonable and not in line with its repairs policy to keep the resident updated on the status of his repairs.
12. For instance, the landlord failed to handle the bedroom heater replacement in line with its repairs policy between May and November 2024. We understand that replacing the heater may have exceeded the timeframe for routine repairs because the wall required remedial repairs first. The landlord made several attempts to fix the wall in May 2024 and, following an inspection in June 2024, concluded that the works were inadequate. It subsequently completed the wall repairs on 4 November 2024 and installed the new heater on 21 November 2024. This was 6 months after it had removed the bedroom heater, which was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident who continued to report the matter throughout this period.
13. We recognise that the resident said that he did not have a functional heater in his bedroom since moving in. As an impartial service, we base our decision on evidence. In this case, we did not see evidence that, prior to the landlord removing the bedroom heater in May 2024, the resident had reported having no heating in his bedroom. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, without supporting evidence we cannot conclude that the landlord failed to respond to reports of no bedroom heating prior to May 2024.
14. The landlord was aware that the resident had no heating in his bedroom between May and November 2024, but it did not show that it had offered the resident a temporary heater. We acknowledge that part of this period fell during the summer months. Nevertheless, in September 2024, the resident informed the landlord, that the lack of heating made it difficult for him to manage the symptoms of his disability. The landlord did not show that it discussed this with him or considered offering a temporary heater until it resolved the issue, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
15. Following the resident’s report in February 2024, about gaps between the kitchen units and kickboards, the landlord completed the repairs on 2 May 2025, exceeding its 20-day timeframe for such repairs. We recognise that the landlord attempted to remedy the problem within seven days of receiving the report, but the resident was not at home. Although it left a note saying it would reschedule the repair, we did not see evidence that it did until after the resident raised a complaint in April 2024. This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to report the issue several times.
16. The evidence shows there were significant delays in the landlord in resolving the repairs to the worktop. It inspected the worktop 92 working days after becoming aware of the problem in July 2024, far beyond its 20-day target for routine repairs. The resident raised the matter with the void team and in his stage 1 complaint, but we saw no evidence that the landlord acted promptly or effectively communicated with the resident on the matter. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it had inspected the worktop on 13 November 2024, and its contractor identified no remedial repairs, however we did not see evidence of the inspection findings.
17. On 25 November 2024, when responding to the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident disputed its statement that no remedial repairs were required for the kitchen worktop. However, the landlord did not re-inspect the worktop until January 2025, after the resident escalated the matter to the chief executive. At that point, it agreed that the worktop had dropped. While this appears to confirm the resident earlier assessment, we cannot conclude that its contractor had not thoroughly inspect the matter in November 2025, or that this was a new repair. Nevertheless, the delay in re-inspecting the worktop was unreasonable and further delayed resolving the matter. We understand that the landlord had planned to complete the repair on 4 March 2025, but postponed the works until May 2025, at the resident’s request.
18. In cases when there are delays in completing repairs, we would expect the landlord to provide regular updates to the resident, including a timeframe for completion. In this case, the landlord did not show that it had kept the resident adequately informed about its progress or any delays it might be facing such as securing a builder to repair the bedroom wall or inspecting the windows. This was unreasonable and caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he had to repeatedly raise the repairs.
19. The landlord should have considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. While we have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Acts, we can decide whether it had properly considered its duties. In this case, the resident repeatedly informed the landlord that he had health conditions and in September 2024, he said that he was disabled. The landlord did not show that it had discussed this with him, updated his tenancy record to reflect his vulnerabilities or considered whether it should make reasonable adjustments when delivering its services to him. This was unreasonable.
20. The evidence provided by the landlord for this investigation raises concerns about its record keeping. For example, although it had agreed a work schedule with the resident in May 2024, it did not show that it had recorded those repairs on its repair log. While it had logged the works to the windows and worktop on 30 October 2024, it did not record whether or when it had completed the repairs. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its obligations as a landlord to keep accurate and up to date records of the repairs within the property. This impacted its overall investigation into the issues.
21. During its investigation of the resident’s complaints, the landlord took steps to put things right but failed to review its handling of the repairs against its own repairs policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so, and its failure was a missed opportunity to identify earlier failings and learn from the complaints. This omission was unreasonable and not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which requires landlords to provide clear reasons for any decisions, refer the relevant policy and learn from complaints.
22. In December 2025, the resident informed us that the landlord had failed to install a new thermostat as agreed. The landlord said that it had completed this on 21 November 2024, however, we have only seen evidence of the heater being installed. We can only conclude there was a service failure by a landlord when it knew about a problem and failed to act. We did not see evidence that the resident reported that the contractor had not installed the thermostat as agreed at the time of the heating repair or at a later stage. Therefore, without evidence, we cannot conclude that the landlord had failed to complete the works or remedy this issue. However, because the resident informed us that this repair remains outstanding, we have ordered the landlord to inspect the matter.
23. The resident informed us in December 2025 that while the landlord had completed repairs in his property, it also failed to adequately complete some of the repairs he reported after November 2024. However, we cannot assess the landlord’s handling of the new repairs because it has not had the opportunity do to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. This would normally require the resident to log a new complaint about these events for the landlord to consider. If the resident would like to pursue this further, he may wish to contact the landlord.
24. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for compensation as agreed following its May 2024 complaint response. Although it addressed this in October 2024, this was 5 months later, which was unreasonable. Its communication failings and delays caused inconvenience to the resident who had to repeatedly raise the issue.
25. Following the end of its process, the landlord offered £210 compensation to the resident for its handling of the bedroom heater installation, the inconvenience caused to the resident and a missed appointment in December 2024. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation, the amount did not reflect the impact of the failings identified in this report.
26. In line with our Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay £550 compensation to the resident (this is inclusive of the landlord’s offer). This reflects that although the landlord took steps to resolve the repairs, its failings significantly impacted on the resident. The award is equivalent to:
    1. £250 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by having to repeatedly reports issues, the delays in resolving the repairs and the repeated visits.
    2. £200 to reflect that the resident did not have heating in his bedroom for 6 months. This also reflect that the landlord did not offer temporary heater to the resident in September 2024.
    3. £100 for failing to consider the resident’s disabilities and vulnerabilities.

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It elaborates that if it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will agree an extension with the resident.
28. We recognise that while the landlord had correctly acknowledged the resident’s April 2024 complaint within its timeframe, it is unclear when it acknowledged the resident’s subsequent complaints. However, we did not see evidence that this impacted the resident’s outcome.
29. There were short delays in the landlord issuing its complaint response. For instance, there was a delay of 1 day in issuing the stage 1 response in May 2024, and a delay of 7 working days in issuing the stage 1 response in October 2024. While the landlord did not show that it had agreed an extension with the resident, the delays were short.
30. However, the evidence shows that instead of escalating the resident’s stage 1 complaint in September 2024, the landlord raised another stage 1. This was unreasonable and delayed the overall complaint process by effectively creating a third level to its complaint process, which is not in line with the Code.
31. Additionally, while we recognise that the resident raised new issues in September 2024, the landlord did not show that it discussed this with the resident at that point. It did not show that it considered issuing a stage 2 response for the escalated issues, such as the repair to the living room windows, while raising a new stage 1 complaint for the subsequent issues, such as the bedroom heater. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained why it raised another stage 1 complaint or to have escalated the issues responded to at stage 1 and raised a new complaint for the additional concerns.
32. However, the landlord did not do so. In internal correspondence it noted it had not escalated the complaint, but did not address this in its complaint responses.

Learning

33. The landlord did not assess its handling of the repairs against its repairs policy when investigating the resident’s complaints. This was a missed opportunity to identify earlier failings and learn from the complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord failed to keep accurate and up to date records of the repairs. This made it difficult to track maintenance history and ensure timely resolution of issues.
35. The landlord did not keep a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities and disabilities on its housing management system. Such omission could lead to inadequate consideration of residents’ needs when delivering services or handling repairs.

Communication

36. There was a high level of communications between the resident and the landlord, however, the landlord failed to consistently and adequately update the resident on the status of the repairs.