London Borough of Wandsworth (202513341)

Decision
Case ID	202513341
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Wandsworth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	25 February 2026

Background

The resident has been the owner of the property since March 2003. The property is a 3-bedroom, ground floor maisonette. Since around September 2013 the resident has experienced issues with a recurring leak into the property. Over the years the landlord has carried out multiple tests and repairs to try to fix the leak. However, all the repairs so far have failed to permanently resolve the leak and it keeps returning. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s failure to enact a lasting repair in April 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident had been reporting issues with a returning leak for many years and thus far the landlord has failed to permanently resolve the issue. The landlord has acknowledged that the issue is ongoing and there have been delays in works being carried out. It also acknowledged failings in its communication with the resident and its record keeping. It appropriately agreed to cover reasonable decoration costs following repair works and a total of £1,000 compensation. However, it did not offer this amount of compensation until over a year after it issued the stage 2 response. While the amount offered is in line with our published remedies guidance, a finding of reasonable redress is not appropriate due to when it was offered. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response within its complaint policy timescales and addressed all the resident’s concerns through its complaints process. However, it issued its stage 2 response outside of its complaint policy timescales. That said, the delay was not excessive and we have not seen evidence that it impacted the outcome of the complaint or the resident. As such, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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 provided by the landlord’s management team. 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 25 March 2026
2	Compensation order If it has not already done so, the landlord must pay the resident the £1,000 compensation offered on 18 July 2025. 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 25 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 an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. 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 the surveyor: Inspects the structure of the building, with the aim of identifying the root cause of the leak into the resident’s property, and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: The most likely cause(s) of the leak into the resident’s property. A full scope of recommended works to try and achieve a lasting, effective resolution to the leak.	No later than 08 April 2026
4	Schedule of works Following receipt of the survey report, the landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a detailed, timed schedule for any works recommended in the report. This must include: The date the landlord expects to start the recommended works. The date the landlord expects to complete the recommended works. A promise for the landlord to update the resident on a regular basis. Especially if there are any delays to the timed schedule of works. If the landlord is unable to carry our any of the recommended works it must fully explain why.	No later than 06 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 April 2024	The resident raised her complaint. She said the leak into the property had returned following recent heavy rain. She said the landlord had not responded to her emails about the issue since October 2023 and asked it to look into it urgently.
25 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that it had not yet been able to permanently resolve the leak. However, it said the source of the leak was not initially apparent and it was not a consistent leak. As such, it had followed a process of elimination to ascertain the cause of ingress into the property. It acknowledged there had been delays to some of the works due to weather conditions and its contractor had to be chased on several occasions. It said that since October 2023 the resident and her management agent had been in regular contact with the landlord. Although it accepted it had only spoken to her agent about her email of 5 October 2023. It acknowledged that it should also have provided her with a direct response. It confirmed it was proactively investigating the leak to find a solution to it. It also said it had reminded its staff about the importance of clear communication and responding to emails even if a telephone conversation takes place.
24 May 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said that over the past 12 years she had spent tens of thousands of pounds repairing and re-repairing the bathroom ceiling. However, as the landlord had failed to permanently fix the leak, it kept coming back and causing damage to the property. She said the landlord’s contractors had attended on 20 May 2024 but had failed to identify the cause of the leak. She said the landlord had carried out multiple dye tests before and the results had come back positive. She also confirmed she had not used a management agent since October 2023.
4 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it operates a responsive service, and it was satisfied that it had maintained the rainwater outlet above the property. It also said it was satisfied it had taken suitable action to investigate and resolve matters when it had received reports of a leak. Although it acknowledged this had not been the case with 2 recent reports as they were sent to someone who no longer worked for the landlord. It also apologised for oversights in its record keeping as well as delays in its communications with the resident. The landlord outlined the results of its more recent investigations into the leak and what actions it would take off the back of these. It said the resident was responsible for carrying out remedial works within the property once the works were completed. However, it said in this instance it would agree to cover reasonable costs for the resident to do so. It also offered £200 compensation in recognition of the delays in it responding to the resident’s communications and for its poor record keeping.
18 July 2025	The landlord responded to the resident’s email of 6 June 2025 where she disagreed with the compensation offered in its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay in responding and said this was due to the person who it was sent to no longer working for the landlord. It said it did not agree with the resident’s request for £12,000 compensation. However, it said it was willing to increase its previous compensation offer from £200 to £1,000 in an attempt to try and resolve the matter.
11 September 2025	The resident confirmed that she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint responses because the compensation offered did no reflect that the leak had been an ongoing issue for over 12 years. She said she wanted the landlord to: – Permanently fix the leak. – Cover the cost of redecoration works as well as any future costs if the leak returns. – Offer around £12,000 compensation to reflect the 12 years the leak had been ongoing.

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	Recurring leak
Finding	Maladministration

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, including the communal walkway, drains, gutters and external pipes. The lease says the resident is responsible for maintaining the internal condition of the property. It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for resolving the leak into the resident’s property.
In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues with a leak going back about 12 years. However, we have not seen evidence that she raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issues until 15 April 2024. We encourage residents to bring complaints to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months, so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues. Therefore, the scope of this investigation includes events from April 2023 (12 months before the complaint was made) up to the point the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process (4 July 2024). Anything that happened before or after these dates is considered for context purposes only.
The resident has also referred to the impact the landlord’s handling of the leak had on her mental and physical health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, we can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
It is not in dispute that since round September 2013 the landlord has tried to identify the root cause of and repair the leak into the resident’s property several times. However, it has so far been unable to enact a permanent resolution to the issue. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the following failings:
1. Delays with the works to repair the leak.
2. Poor communication with the resident.
3. Poor record keeping.
Therefore, the question before us is whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
To do this, we consider both the events which initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
We acknowledge the landlord has been unable to enact a permanent solution to the leak despite carrying out many tests and repairs over the years. However, it should be noted that identifying the source of a leak can be highly complex, and it can often take multiple visits and attempted repairs before a leak can be resolved. This is especially the case when a leak is intermittent and only returns, for example, months or a year after the last repair was carried out.
In recognition of the impact its failings had on the resident, the landlord offered a total of £200 compensation in its stage 2 response. It also agreed to cover reasonable costs incurred by the resident when redecorating the property after it completed the repair works. However, on 18 July 2024 the landlord offered to increase its offer of compensation to £1,000.
We appreciate the resident wants the landlord to cover any future decoration costs if the leak returns. However, it would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to cover such future costs because it is her responsibility to maintain the internal condition of the property. Therefore, the landlord went beyond its obligations by agreeing to cover reasonable costs incurred by the resident when redecorating the property following the upcoming works. We are also aware that in other communications during the period in question the landlord appropriately provided its insurance details and information on how to make a claim. Therefore, if the resident incurs any future decoration costs due to the leak returning, she may wish to consider making an insurance claim as previously advised by the landlord.
In terms of remedy compensation itself, in cases like this, compensation of around £600 would be in line with our published remedies guidance. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and award a total of £1,000 compensation in recognition of the impact these had on the resident.
However, while the total amount offered by the landlord is in line with our published remedies guidance, it offered this over a year after it issued its stage 2 response. This indicates the landlord did not take the opportunity of the complaint process to properly investigate the circumstances of the complaint and make a suitable offer of redress as soon as it could.
Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress would not be appropriate despite the landlord now offering proportionate compensation for its handling of the leak. In view of this, a finding of maladministration has been made. We have ordered the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay the £1,000 compensation offered on 18 July 2025.
It is our understanding that the property continues to suffer from the leak and the landlord has not enacted a permanent repair. Based on information provided, it is also our understanding that the landlord has carried out further inspections since it issued its stage 2 response. However, we are not aware of what these inspections entailed, the results or if any progress has been made in finding a permanent solution to the leak. Therefore, we order the landlord to arrange a structural survey of the building with the aim of identifying the root cause of the leak and works to permanently resolve it. Following the survey, the landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a timed, detailed schedule of works.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage the landlord will inform the resident. It says an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
The resident raised her complaint on 15 April 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it that same day. It then issued its stage 1 response on 26 April 2024. This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident then escalated her complaint on 24 May 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it on 28 May 2024. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 4 July 2024. This was 7 working days outside of it complaints policy timescales. Additionally, no evidence has seen to show the landlord told the resident that it needed more time to issue its response.
This was not in line with its complaint policy timescales and it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have informed the resident that more time was needed. That said, while any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience for the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive. We have also not seen evidence of a significant impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint.
Through its complaints process the landlord adequately addressed all the concerns raised by the residents. It also set out what it had learnt from the resident’s complaint and the steps it had taken to prevent such mistakes in future.
As such, we have found there was no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Communication and record-keeping

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs.
Similarly, clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents.

Complaint handling

The landlord must ensure its complaint responses are issued within its complaints policy timescales. It must also ensure that it communicates with the resident if it needs more time to issue its response.