Southwark Council (202451019)

Decision
Case ID	202451019
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	9 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a maisonette. A communal district heating system provides heating and hot water to the property. In November 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that he had no heating or hot water.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord was responsible for:
1. Maladministration in its response to reports of a loss of heating and hot water.
2. Service failure in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to a loss of heating and hot water

The landlord did not properly investigate the resident’s report about losing heating and hot water, and it failed to recognise or respond to the key issues causing distress and frustration.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not respond to the complaint within its policy timescales at either stage, and it did not adequately remedy the likely detriment caused by these delays.

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 09 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £236 made up as follows: £36 as offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already. £150 for the frustration and distress caused by the landlord’s response to reports of a loss of heating and hot water. £50 for the distress caused by its complaint handling delays. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 09 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure it: Inspects the district heating system as well as the resident’s property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of the loss of heating and hot water in the resident’s property 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 resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 09 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 November 2024	The resident made a formal complaint about losing heating and hot water between 17 and 28 November 2024. He said the landlord missed appointments and that the first engineer did not fix the problem or check whether their work had been successful. He reported the loss of heating and hot water again, and said the issue was not fully investigated until a different engineer visited on 27 November 2024. He asked for a refund of his service charge and £258 compensation, made up of £150 for time and trouble and £9 per day for the 12 days he had no heating or hot water.
2 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said that on 16 November 2024 the last working permanent boiler on the estate developed an internal leak. A temporary oil boiler was installed the next day. On 18 November 2024 the landlord became aware that several blocks on the estate were receiving reduced temperatures. Urgent repairs to the leaking boiler began on 22 November 2024 and were expected to finish by 27 November 2024. The landlord said the containerised boiler plant would be replaced and moved to a new location so it could supply heat to the whole estate if the main boiler failed again. It explained that the initial loss of heating lasted for less than 24 hours and that the boiler house continued to run, although at lower temperatures. Because of this, the situation did not meet the criteria for loss‑of‑service payments. It also said that new temporary boilers were installed behind the boiler house in December 2024 to support the heating system.
3 January 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He felt the landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the key issues, as he had no heating or hot water in November 2024, rather than low temperatures. He also explained that problems with the heating system had been ongoing since 2010 and were getting worse. He repeated his request for compensation.
10 February 2025	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response and apologised for the delay in responding. It accepted that there had been a disruption to the service. However, it said that after checking its records for the period in question, the data did not show a full loss of service. As an exception, it offered £36 in compensation, calculated at £3 per day for the 12 days between 17 and 28 November 2024.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not taken meaningful action to resolve the issue or address the underlying problem. He stated that the complete loss of heating and hot water seemed to affect only his property. He explained that he was still experiencing the issue regularly and that it was affecting his daily life. He said he had to go to the gym to shower and rely on blankets to stay warm in winter. As an outcome, he wanted a lasting solution to the problem, as well as compensation.

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	Response to reports of a loss of heating and hot water
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord clearly explained in its stage 1 response the steps it had taken after the heating and hot water issues were reported in November 2024. However, it did not address the main points raised in the resident’s complaint or in his escalation request.
The resident was unhappy about the missed appointments, and the landlord did not respond to or dispute this part of the complaint. He was also concerned that the first engineer did not check whether their work had successfully restored heating and hot water in the property, which is supported by the landlord’s repair records. The records further show that the actions taken and the checks completed during the follow‑up visit on 27 November 2024 were much more thorough. This added to the resident’s frustration, as he felt the first engineer had not properly investigated the issue.
The resident consistently stated that he had no heating or hot water in his property. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord said the loss of heating and hot water lasted less than 24 hours and that, after this, the systems were working but at a lower temperature. Its final response repeated this position, stating that its data did not show a full loss of service.
This was accurate according to the landlord’s estate-wide records. However, because the issue was ongoing and the resident repeatedly stated that his property lost all heating and hot water when the problem occurred, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate whether his home was being affected differently from his neighbours’. Instead, the landlord relied on desktop data that appeared to give only a general overview of the estate, rather than showing how each individual property was affected.
This was a key part of the resident’s complaint that the landlord overlooked. As a result, the resident experienced further distress, particularly as he explained that the issue had been ongoing since 2010. Indeed, the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged regular service problems with the heating system over the last couple of years.
We cannot say with certainty that the resident was without heating or hot water for the entire period in November 2024. However, the landlord awarded £36 in compensation on the basis that this had occurred. This was fair and consistent with its compensation policy, which allows £3 for each full day of a communal heating and hot‑water outage.
However, this did not go far enough to put things right. The resident experienced inconvenience and frustration due to the missed appointments, and because he had to raise a further report after the first engineer’s visit. The landlord did not properly address these points in its formal responses.
It also failed to take a proactive approach to investigating the resident’s claim that only his property was left without heating or hot water. This showed a lack of customer focus, especially given the long-standing nature of the problem and the resident’s repeated reports of having no heating or hot water, including again in December 2024, which left him feeling unheard.
We have therefore awarded compensation in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards from £100 where service failings have had an adverse effect on a resident. In keeping with our dispute‑resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes, we have also ordered an inspection so the landlord can determine whether, and why, this issue is causing a complete loss of heating and hot water for the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 December 2024, which was 10 working days after the resident first raised it and outside the timescale set out in its complaints policy. In its acknowledgement, the landlord said it would provide a response by 30 December 2024. However, it did not respond within that timeframe and did not offer any explanation or apology for the delay. It took the landlord 22 working days to issue its stage 1 response, which was contrary to its policy timescales and the Complaint Handling Code.
There was also a delay at stage 2, with the landlord issuing its response 27 working days after the resident’s escalation request, which was outside its policy timescales. Although the delay was minor and the landlord apologised, it still showed a lack of learning from the earlier delay at stage 1.
Our compensation order reflects the likely distress caused by these delays and is consistent with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of up to £100 where there have been minor failings that have not been fully put right.

Learning

The landlord should ensure that repair investigations are thorough and property-specific, especially when a resident reports that an issue affects their home differently from others.

Knowledge information management (record–keeping)

There were gaps in the landlord’s record-keeping, which made it difficult to confirm some of the actions it said it had taken in its stage 1 response. Good record-keeping is essential, as it allows the landlord to evidence its key actions.

Communication

In this case, the records do not show that the landlord communicated with the resident about the missed appointments or the investigations, and it did not provide any response or explanation for this. The resident’s frustration could likely have been avoided if the landlord had addressed these key concerns.