Southwark Council (202527751)

Decision
Case ID	202527751
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	21 April 2026

Background

The resident has held a lease for the first-floor flat since July 2024. She shares a communal front entrance door with a property below. She asked the landlord to replace the front door, primarily as it was unsecure. The landlord has offered to repair it. The resident also reported water ingress and delays removing scaffolding.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:

Reports of a faulty communal door.
The removal of scaffolding.
Reports of water ingress.
The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty communal door.
There was service failure in the landlord’s removal of scaffolding.

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

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress.
The landlord provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

Summary of reasons

While the landlord’s decision to repair the door was reasonable, it failed to remedy the security risk and did not respond to the resident’s reports in line with its repair timeframe.
The landlord did not put right the impact of its delay removing scaffolding.
The landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of water ingress in a reasonable timeframe and in line with its repair policy.
The landlord provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

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 meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence it has paid directly to the resident £250 made up of: £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays repairing the communal door. £100 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by delays removing scaffolding.	No later than 19 May 2026
3	Repair order The landlord must provide both us and the resident with a schedule of planned works to prevent the communal door being accessed via the letterbox. It must include when it aims to start and finish work. The landlord must contact both parties who use the communal door and take all reasonable steps to agree the schedule of work. If it cannot reach an agreement on its proposals, it must tell us why and provide supporting evidence of its attempts.	No later than 19 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation previously awarded for complaint handling failures. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord paying this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 April 2025	The resident complained that the communal door was difficult to open. She attached a video showing how recent repairs meant it could be opened from outside via the letter box. She asked the landlord to replace it and said it was old, unattractive, faulty and unsafe.
1 August 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response and said it had fixed the lock and made the door safe on 17 April 2025. It planned to block the letterbox nearest the night latch to remove the security risk. It said 2 inspections found the door was working properly so it was not viable to replace it. It apologised for complaint handling delays and awarded £50 compensation for time and trouble caused by them.
20 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint and said: She disagreed the door did not need replacing. It was unsightly, not fit for purpose and she should have her own letterbox. She raised a new complaint about water ingress that she believed was due to rising damp from a neighbouring property since 2017. It had spread onto the stairway and into the property. She complained that scaffolding for unrelated roof repairs was in place 6 months longer than necessary. It was an eyesore, a potential hazard and it increased her service charges.
4 September 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response for the new issues. It said: It removed scaffolding on 14 July 2025 and the resident did not incur additional costs as it was charged only for its erection and removal. There was an active legal disrepair claim brought by a neighbour regarding water ingress but it was unable to disclose details. It agreed to complete any recommended repairs from a damp and mould inspection that day. The resident escalated these issues later that day and reiterated her complaints. She said scaffolding remained at the front of the property.
15 October 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said it: Was not obliged to replace the front door and the resident declined work to prevent its security being compromised. Apologised for slow progress on damp and mould work and it had asked for it to be completed promptly. Acknowledged scaffolding was still erected and attributed this to a record keeping error. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and agreed to remove it. Awarded a further £100 compensation for time and trouble caused by complaint handling delays.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident says the communal door remains a security risk. She said her home is the most significant financial asset she has and unresolved issues cause persistent anxiety.

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	The landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty communal door
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s guide for leaseholders says that, generally, the leaseholder is responsible for repairs inside their home and the landlord is responsible for repairs to communal areas and the structure of the building. It says it is responsible for repairs to communal doors.
The resident told us the landlord repaired the communal door in February 2025. We do not dispute this but have not seen supporting records. She says she told the landlord in March 2025 that the repair made the door more difficult to close and needed a new lock.
Again, we have not seen records to support this. However, we do know the landlord raised work to inspect the door as it was very difficult to lock and close on 7 April 2025.The landlord’s repair policy says it will repair door entry systems, which do not pose a security risk, within 3 working days. We have not seen it inspected or repaired the door within this timescale.
The landlord’s repair policy also says it will treat defective entrance door locks, where the security of the property is at risk, as an emergency repair and attend within 24 hours. Although the resident reported security concerns in her stage 1 complaint, the landlord did not respond within its repair policy timeframe.
The resident pursued the issue again on 17 April 2025. It is positive the landlord attended that day to make the door safe. Landlord records do not detail what work it carried out but the resident’s contact of that day says it refitted the letterbox guard with silicone. However, she also reported that someone could still put their hand through it. She believed the door was not serviceable and asked the landlord to replace it.
Records of 23 April 2025 show the landlord could not relocate the lock to a higher position (away from the letterbox) due to accessibility issues. It is positive the landlord inspected the door on 12 May 2025 to seek an appropriate resolution. This confirmed a security risk due to the proximity of one of the letterboxes to the night latch. However, the landlord did not raise work to seal the letterbox closest to the latch (to stop access from outside) until 30 May 2025. This was 30 working days from when the resident reported a security risk. It was significantly outside the landlord’s timeframe to deal with such reports.
On 3 June 2025 the resident told the landlord she disagreed with its proposal to seal the letterbox believing it would be inefficient and costly. She said only having one functioning letterbox would compromise the doors condition and appearance. She said its ‘dishevelled’ appearance was affecting the overall impression of the property.
It is positive the landlord arranged a second inspection following the resident’s concerns. The inspector agreed with the findings of the first inspection. It said a communal door with one letterbox was not unusual and was a compromise if someone could open it from outside. The inspector told the resident the landlord needed to be prudent with its finances if the door did not need replacing.
The landlord reiterated this position in its stage 2 response. It provided costs to repair and replace the door and explained it would cost more to replace even if the resident contributed equally to costs.
We fully understand why the resident felt the appearance of the door was important and affected the overall value and impression of the property. However, the landlord was responsible for ensuring the communal door was safe and functioning as intended. It was not responsible for replacing it if it was old or unattractive.
As providers of social housing, landlords must make the most effective use of their limited resources. This will often involve carrying out repairs wherever possible, rather than a replacement. The 2 inspections found the door was in working order, while acknowledging a security risk the landlord believed could be mitigated. Therefore, its decision to repair the door, rather than replace it, was reasonable.
Further, while we understand why the resident wanted her own letterbox, there was no regulation requiring the landlord to provide this. Photographs of the existing letterboxes show mail would fall into a single basket if the landlord closed off one of the letterboxes. There is no indication that accessing it would cause any significant inconvenience or hardship or that the proposed alteration was any less secure or accessible.
However, while the resident reported the potential security risk in April 2025, we have not seen the landlord has resolved this. The resident told the landlord in October 2025 that someone let themselves into the communal hall and stole 2 parcels. While she did not explicitly say she held the landlord responsible for this, she highlighted that the letterbox was still unsealed.
It appears this may have prompted the landlord to speak with the resident on 15 October 2025 when she declined its offer to seal the letterbox. The landlord should have continued to progress repairs as it remained responsible for ensuring the communal door was safe, regardless of whether the resident agreed to its proposed actions.
This failure, in addition to the other repair delays, amount to maladministration that the landlord has not acknowledged. Therefore, it has missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. We order it to apologise for this and pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
This is in line with our compensation guidance for when there has been a failure that adversely affected a resident and the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge this or put it right. In determining this amount, we consider the resident could have reduced the impact of the failures if she agreed to the landlord’s reasonable proposed repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the removal of scaffolding
Finding	Service failure

The resident told us that part of this complaint involves dissatisfaction with roof repairs and associated Section 20 charges. We cannot consider these issues. This is because we have not seen that the landlord was given the opportunity to address them at both stages of its internal complaint process before they were brought to us. The resident says she has since complained about this and is waiting for a stage 2 response. She can bring these matters to us if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
The landlord’s stage 1 response incorrectly said it had removed scaffolding on 14 July 2025. It is positive it corrected this in the stage 2 response after the resident pointed out the error. While it agreed to remove scaffolding, it had already been taken down by that point. The resident said this happened on 9 October 2025 and only because she chased contractors. We understand her frustration that the landlord provided incorrect information for a second time.
Further, the landlord took almost 5 months to remove scaffolding after it completed work, which was unreasonable. It is positive the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by this in its stage 2 response. However, its compensation policy says it should award compensation when its service has not achieved the expected standards and caused distress that includes uncertainty, worry and anxiety. In addition, it should consider the time and trouble taken to resolve the problem.
The resident told the landlord she was worried the scaffolding presented an ongoing security risk and believed it made the property more vulnerable to opportunistic crime. Therefore, the landlord should have considered compensating the resident for both this distress and the time and trouble caused progressing the matter due to the incorrect information provided in its stage 1 response.
Again, the landlord’s failure to provide appropriate redress has meant it missed an opportunity to put things right. We order it to apologise for this and pay the resident £100 compensation for the impact caused by its service failure. This is in line with our compensation guidance for minor service failures that the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged or put it right.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress
Finding	No maladministration

The resident has reported water ingress since 2017. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, we have assessed the landlord’s handling of this issue since she first reported it within her complaint in August 2025. While she referenced that an inspection at that time found high levels of damp, it appears this took place as part of a disrepair claim brought by a neighbour, so it does not form part of our assessment.
The landlord is responsible for repairs to communal areas and the structure of the building. Its repair policy says it aims to inspect properties following reports of damp within 20 working days. It is positive it did so in this case. The inspection of 4 September 2025 said the issue affected a party wall between 2 buildings affecting 4 separate properties, one of which was the resident’s. The inspector found moisture in the party wall but was unable to complete the investigation as it could not access the other 3 properties. It recommended a further inspection when it could gain access.
It was therefore understandable that the landlord could not provide a schedule of work at the point of its stage 2 response. It had inspected the property within its repair policy timeframe but needed to inspect other properties before it could determine a schedule of work.
While the stage 2 response referred to an appointment of 4 October 2025, we have not seen a record of this. However, an inspection of 20 October 2025 found moisture issues at neighbouring properties. It concluded work was needed to improve bathroom water containment, enhance wall breathability, and adjust exterior ground levels. It said the landlord would need to assess the effectiveness of any remedial work. While the inspection took place outside the 20 working day time limit, the landlord needed to gain access to multiple properties and it did so within a reasonable time. We would not expect the landlord to have resolved the issue by that point as the matter was complex and further work was needed. Therefore, there was no maladministration in its handling of reports of water ingress.
We do not know what action the landlord took after this inspection. The resident told us in December 2025 that she was unhappy the landlord asked her to render the property and agreed to reimburse her. We are unable to assess the landlord’s actions following the inspection of 20 October 2025, as it needs a fair opportunity to address any dissatisfaction at both stages of the complaint process first.
The resident told us she has raised ongoing dissatisfaction with how the landlord is progressing remedial work as a new complaint and is waiting for its stage 2 response. Again, she can refer these issues to us if she is dissatisfied with its final response. She also told us she has started legal proceedings. We have continued with the investigation on the basis that formal proceedings have not yet been issued.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

At the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It then aimed to respond at stage 1 within 15 working days and at stage 2 within 25 working days, seemingly of receiving the complaint.
Its updated policy of October 2025 says it aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Our Complaint Handling Code says these timeframes must apply from when the landlord acknowledges the complaint.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint about water ingress and scaffolding within its policy timeframe. However, it issued the stage 1 response regarding the communal door 62 working days late. Its stage 2 reply was 16 working days late. The landlord did not update the resident during these delays or provide revised timeframes for when she could expect a response. Records show she spent considerable time and trouble progressing responses and needed to seek our help in doing so.
However, the landlord has acknowledged its complaint delays and failure to update the resident. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings are as relevant as the original service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration if the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
The landlord has apologised for complaint handling failures and awarded £150 for the impact of them. This is in line with our compensation guidance for when responses are delayed by weeks or months, affect timely resolution of the dispute and have a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, we find the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (KIM – record keeping)

The landlord’s repair records are often unclear and lack detail. Some show when it raised repairs but do not detail what work took place, if any. Our spotlight report on KIM highlights how weaknesses in data and information causes problems for landlord’s services. Our centre for learning has resources to help landlord’s keep accurate records, make clear decisions, and provide a safer, more reliable service for residents.

Communication

We have not seen the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Our spotlight report on ‘repairs and maintenance’ explains that landlords can avoid failures when they:
1. Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
2. Gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure work is satisfactory.