London Borough of Lewisham (202417652)

Decision
Case ID	202417652
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lewisham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident reported a leak and water ingress into their property and that the neighbour’s cats were causing nuisance in their garden. They were unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks and water ingress in their property and the subsequent damage.
2. Reports of a nuisance caused by the neighbour’s cats.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and water ingress in the resident’s property and the subsequent damage.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of a nuisance caused by the neighbour’s cats.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak and water ingress in their property and the subsequent damage

The landlord did not take a holistic view to consider the resident’s multiple reports of leaks and inspect the property to find all potential causes of the issue. It did not assess the risk involved when the resident raised health and safety concerns. It kept inadequate inspection and repair records, which it did not respond to when the resident asked for them, and delayed internal and external repairs it was responsible for under the lease. It did not offer compensation to the resident for this or identify lessons learned in its complaint response.

Reports of a nuisance caused by the neighbour’s cats

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports about their neighbour’s pets in line with the timeframe set out in its ASB policy.

Complaint

The landlord did not respond to the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint within the timeframe set out in its complaint policy. It failed to address the complaint about the neighbour’s pets in its stage 2 response. It did not offer compensation to the resident or identify lessons learned in its complaint response.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: 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 27 February 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the report of a leak and water ingress in their property £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 February 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident for an update on the reports of leaks and water ingress in the property. It should then complete an inspection of the property and write to the resident with a copy the inspection report and an action plan of the steps it will take to complete any recommended repairs. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of possible leaks and water ingress. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection of the property and the action plan is set out to the resident by the due date. It must set out that it will confirm to the resident in writing when all recommended repairs are completed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete an inspection to all parts of the property, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date and set out to the resident what its next steps will be. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects all possible sources of leaks and water ingress in the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the leaks and water ingress whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons, where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 27 February 2026
4	Specific action The landlord must contact the resident for an update on the reports of a nuisance caused by cats. It should then consider the report and provide a written response about this to the resident, with consideration of its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. It must provide us a copy of its response.	No later than 27 February 2026
5	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report, including: the delay to find and remedy the leaks and water ingress its record keeping of inspections the lack of proactive updates to the resident the delay to respond to the report of cats being a nuisance its delay handling the complaint and lack of full response to the escalation of the complaint It should explain what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 27 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord considers whether it should pay any further compensation to the resident from the time of its stage 2 response and the time it completes repairs in attempt to remedy sources of the leak and water ingress.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 June 2024 and 27 June 2024	The resident reported 2 leaks and water ingress from the neighbour’s property. They said this caused damage to their ceiling and possibly the property’s insulation. They said the fire brigade advised them to turn off their electricity.
Between 8 July 2024 and 30 July 2024	The resident reported a further leak. The landlord said it completed repairs in the neighbour’s property and found no further leaks.
Between 22 August 2024 and 20 September 2024	The resident reported 2 further leaks coming from their neighbour’s property. The landlord said it tried to inspect the issue but could not gain access to the neighbour’s property.
Between 6 October 2024 and 15 November 2024	The landlord said it had inspected the external parts of the property and found leaks coming from the gutters. It said it had tried to check for a leak inside the neighbour’s property but could not gain access.
29 November 2024	The resident complained of leaks and water ingress in their property that had caused damage. They also said the complaint concerned the neighbour’s disposal of cat waste in their garden.
17 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it repaired a leak in July 2024 and had been unable to access the neighbour’s property after further reports were made. It said it would inspect the neighbour’s property on 23 December 2024. It noted the last report about the neighbour’s pets was in 2022, where no welfare issues were found. It apologised for not inspecting the neighbour’s property sooner and recommended that the resident claimed for property damage through their own insurance, or they could alternatively use the landlord’s insurance.
Between 23 December 2024 and 6 January 2025	The landlord inspected the property and found the gutters were blocked and there was damage to the chimney. It also said it had found a leak in the neighbour’s bathroom and repaired it.
2 and 3 February 2025	The resident reported water ingress and a leak into their property and said they had lost power. They escalated their complaint because the issue remained unresolved and they were concerned for their safety.
Between 4 February 2025 and 2 June 2025	The landlord inspected the neighbour’s property and continued to find chimney damage and blocked gutters that needed to be repaired. The resident reported further leaks affecting their electrics and asked the landlord to confirm when the repairs were completed.
23 June 2025	We asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 response about the leaks, water ingress, and their reports about the neighbour’s cats.
9 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged the delay in repairing the leaks and water ingress and said it had been unable to access the neighbour’s property to complete the work. It scheduled the repairs for 21 July 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said they were unhappy that the landlord had not resolved the leaks and water ingress or addressed the pet nuisance in their garden. They wanted the repairs completed with written confirmation, the damage to their property remedied, an apology, and compensation for the loss of enjoyment and peaceful living over the past 5 years.

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	Reports of leaks and water ingress in their property and the subsequent damage
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident said they had reported leaks and water ingress in their property for the past 5 years. They said that in 2022 they had instructed a solicitor but had not pursued legal action. They also said they had made an insurance claim in 2022 when repairs were completed to their property and they had to move out for 4 months, but the leaks had continued since then.
It is not possible for us to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back 5 years. We will consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time. Therefore, we will consider events reported in the 12 months leading up to the complaint. In this case, from June 2024.

What we have investigated

The landlord recorded that the leak was contained and had come from a pipe serving the neighbour’s property. It said it had 20 working days to inspect it. This was in line with the lease that sets out it is responsible for pipes that do not serve the resident’s property. However, there is no evidence it considered the safety concerns raised by the resident and assessed the risks. This was not in line with its damp, mould, and leak policy that said it would determine the risks and complete visual inspections.
The landlord arranged to inspect the leak on 17 July 2024 and 30 July 2024. It said it found and repaired leaks in the neighbour’s bathroom. It said it had found no other sources of a leak. This was appropriate and in line with the lease and its damp, mould, and leak policy that said it would remedy the issue.
The resident continued to report a leak into their property on 22 August 2024 and 4 September 2024. They asked the landlord for a copy of its inspection reports. There is no evidence of the report, its findings and recommendations. The landlord had also not responded to the resident’s request. This was a failure of its record keeping.
The landlord said it attempted to inspect the neighbour’s property on 20 September 2024 but could not gain entry. There is no evidence it continued attempts to inspect the neighbour’s property around that time. This was not in line with its damp, mould and leaks policy that sets out it would find the cause of the leak, take steps to address it, and it would act where another party may be responsible.
The landlord had taken 74 working days to inspect the property’s exterior where it found leaking gutters and areas that needed to be repointed. This was in line with its responsibility under the lease that sets out it was responsible for the exterior of the property. However, the delayed inspection suggests it had not taken a holistic approach to remedy the issue sooner, which was not in line with its damp, mould, and leak policy.
The landlord had taken 93 working days to attempt to remedy the issue from the neighbour’s property on 6 January 2025. It had not kept the resident proactively updated in that time. This was not in line withdamp, mould and leak policy which said it would keep them updated as to what action it was taking and when it would repair the issue.
The resident reported further leaks on 2 February 2025. They said water had entered the electrics, caused a power outage, and corroded a socket, which caused them serious concern for their welfare. They chased the landlord, requested its inspection reports, and said they could not repair internal damage until the leak was fixed. The landlord tried but failed to inspect the neighbour’s property to remedy the issue. This was not in line with its damp, mould, and leak policy that sets out it would find the cause of the leak, and that it would act where another party may be responsible.
The landlord had not completed the external repairs it identified for a year. This exceeded the 20-day timeframe in its repair policy and delayed action to remedy the leaks and water ingress.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it said it had tried to fix the leak and water ingress but had been unable to do so. It apologised for the delays, explained it would complete repairs to the neighbour’s bathroom, and recommended the resident claim for property damage through their own insurance, or the landlord’s insurance. It was reasonable to refer the resident to their insurance for the property damage, as the lease required the leaseholder to insure the property against damage and the landlord to protect it against insured risks.
Based on our investigation, we found failures, outlined in the summary of reasons section of this report, that the landlord did not recognise. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We have made orders to put things right listed in the putting things right section of this report.
The orders include that compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In this case, the resident had made clear they were fearful for their welfare due to the health and safety risks involved with their electrics. They said they felt a loss of peace and enjoyment as the property had been damaged by the water ingress and leaks which they could not repair as the issue is unresolved. This has been considered when setting out the compensation order.

Complaint	Report of a nuisance caused by the neighbour’s cats
Finding	Service failure

In the landlord’s complaint response, it said it would contact the resident to understand the issue about the neighbour’s pets. However, there is no evidence it did this. This was not in line with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy that sets out it would respond to reports of pet nuisance within 3 working days. The landlord had not apologised for the delayed response to the report of pets causing a nuisance and had not identified learnings from this. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles.
The resident confirmed to us that they were unsure whether their neighbour owned the pets still, but that they were still entering their garden and causing a nuisance.
Based on our investigation, we found minor failures, outlined in the summary of reasons section of this report, that the landlord did not recognise. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We have made orders to put things right. This includes that the landlord contacts the resident for an up to date understanding of the issue and to set out what its next steps would be in line with its ASB policy, if it is reported that the issue is ongoing.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and the resident should receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive an acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a formal response within 20 working days.
The landlord had not acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and therefore had not sent its response in time. This was not in line with its complaint policy.
The resident escalated their complaint, and the landlord acknowledged it on the same day. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident 88 working days late. It also had not provided its stage 2 response about the neighbour’s pets. This was not in line with its complaint policy which says it would clarify its understanding of the complaint and review its investigations of the complaint it answered at stage 1.
The landlord had not recognised its failures in the complaint response. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We have made orders to put things right, including compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused to them.

Learning

The landlord missed opportunities to identify and set out learning points for the substantive issues in its complaint responses. It would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes for the landlord to set out areas of learning to the resident within its internal complaint procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records. Doing so can help landlords meet their obligations and provide us with information for a thorough investigation. The landlord’s evidence was unclear as to what it found during inspections, what repairs were completed and when. This made it difficult to assess at times.

Communication

The landlord did not keep to its damp, mould and leak policy to proactively keep the resident updated throughout its attempted inspections and repairs of the property. This likely undermined the relationship between it and the resident.