London Borough of Lewisham (202424318)

Decision
Case ID	202424318
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lewisham
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure tenancy
Date	12 May 2026

Background

The resident lives in a first-floor flat. He was unhappy with the length of time taken for the landlord to address his reports of a leak from a flat above and undertake remedial repairs.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak

The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident in response to his reports of a leak from a flat above. Once the leak was resolved, the resident experienced a significant delay in the landlord undertaking any remedial works in his home to repair damage caused by the leak.

Complaint handling

The resident experienced delays in the landlord acknowledging his complaint at both stages of its complaints process. Although the landlord identified service failures, it did not consider awarding compensation.

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 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300, made up of: £250 for the distress caused by its handling of reports of a leak. £50 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures. 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 09 June 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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 June 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £300, made up of:

£250 for the distress caused by its handling of reports of a leak.
£50 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.

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

09 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 September 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint about a leak coming into his property from another flat. The key points were as follows: He reported a potential leak on 4 August 2024 due to noticing bubbles on his ceiling and brown stains expanding on his bathroom walls. The landlord said it would not treat this as an emergency due to there being no leak but would phone him back. When he contacted the landlord on 5 August 2024, it had no record of his previous call. The landlord said it would visit his flat and the flat above on 8 August 2024 but then did not do so. He visited the flat above, which was vacant with a member of the landlord’s repairs team undertaking renovations who said the leak was coming from the flat above but did not report this. The landlord visited the flat 2 floors above his home on 13 August 2024, but the tenant said there was no leak and no investigation took place. The landlord revisited the flat 2 floors above, but no one was home. It said it would not consider forcing entry until it had made a further attempt to visit. The landlord had not contacted since he reported the issue. The leak had caused significant damage, a damp smell in 4 rooms, considerable inconvenience and was a safety risk.
4 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
18 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The key points were as follows: Due to data protection, it was unable to disclose details of work orders for neighbouring properties but could disclose the action it had taken to address the leak. Someone lived in the flat on the floor above the resident’s home, in which it had carried out repairs and attended on 7 August 2024 but found no leak. It attended the flat 2 floors above the resident’s home on 13 August 2024 but did not find a leak there, either. The resident raised concerns about this visit so it returned on 2 September 2024 but could not gain access. The landlord said it required 3 failed visits for legal reasons before it could start the process for potential forced entry. It escalated the matter and revisited on 25 September 2024 but found no leak. It next attended the flat 3 floors above the resident’s home but did not gain access. However, its tenant had reported a leak that its contractor was repairing, which it suspected was the source of the leak experienced by the resident. The operative who repaired the resident’s toilet on 3 October 2024, reported that the leak had stopped. Where access is required to multiple addresses, it usually approaches leaks with a process of elimination, which can extend the repair timeframe. It would raise remedial works to address damage caused in the resident’s home by the leak. It had diligently attended reports of a leak and progressed this as best it could. It apologised for its lack of updates regarding the leak.
11 December 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The key points were as follows: 3 or 4 people had visited to take photographs of damage in his home due to the leak. He had been without a working light in his bathroom for almost 3 months due to the leak.
2 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
30 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows: It was sorry that remedial repairs had yet to take place. It had raised a job on 1 November 2024 to assess damage caused by the leak in the resident’s home. It visited on 18 November 2024 and scheduled work to take place on 4 December 2024. However, the resident said no work had taken place and its records were insufficient to establish what had happened. Its contractor reinstated the resident’s bathroom light on 24 December 2024. Its repairs supervisor would visit on 31 January 2025, following which it would schedule remedial repairs and update the resident.
16 September 2025	The resident referred his complaint to us. He requested that the landlord complete remedial repairs due to damage caused by the leak from a flat above.

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	Landlord’s handling of reports of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

This investigation considers how the landlord approached matters up to its stage 2 response on 30 January 2025. We are aware that the resident has since raised a new complaint due to a leak that postdates this one, for which the landlord is undertaking remedial repairs.

What we have investigated

The resident said a leak from a flat above impacted 4 rooms in his home, causing damage and a damp smell, which he reported to the landlord on 4 and 5 August 2024. The landlord has not provided any evidence that the resident reported a leak prior to his formal complaint on 17 September 2024. However, its stage 1 response on 18 October 2024 explained actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of a leak before his formal complaint. This indicates an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
When responding at stage 1, the landlord identified that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident. Its lack of communication prompted the resident to complain and pursue updates, which likely caused him inconvenience.
The first evidence of a job raised regarding a leak impacting the resident’s home was on 1 November 2024, which was to repair damage caused by a leak. On 25 November 2024, the landlord raised a further job due to the bathroom light tripping the electrics in the property when this was turned on. It also noted the actions it had taken to resolve the leak, including visiting flats on the 4 floors above the resident’s home. However, it is a shortfall that the landlord did not keep the resident updated despite previously acknowledging its communication failures.
The landlord’s failure to undertake remedial repairs following the leak prompted the resident to escalate his complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was unable to establish what had happened after visiting the resident’s home on 18 November 2024. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said its contractor reinstated the resident’s bathroom light on 24 December 2024. This was 1 day outside its routine repair timeframe of 20 working days specified in its repairs policy from when it raised the repair.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also said it had spoken to the resident on 30 January 2025 to arrange to visit to assess and then schedule any necessary repairs due to the leak. However, its records do not reflect this. This further indicates an issue with its record keeping. By this time, 75 working days had passed since the landlord had noted that the leak had stopped. This was 55 working days outside its timeframe for completing routine repairs, which was not reasonable.
The resident told us that the landlord was undertaking repairs following a leak that occurred in August 2025. Therefore, we have not made any orders relating to repairs.
We understand that it can take a landlord longer to identify and resolve the cause of a leak where this is not immediately apparent within a resident’s home. In this case, the landlord attended 4 other flats before locating the leak. However, it is a failing that it did not keep the resident updated and that he experienced a significant delay in it undertaking remedial works once the leak had stopped, which no doubt caused him distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have made a finding of maladministration.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code), effective from 1 April 2024, sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord had a published complaints policy that complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 September 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint in a timely manner prompted the resident to pursue a response on 30 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 October 2024, which was 8 working days late. It then issued its stage 1 response on 18 October 2024, which was in line with the timeframe specified in its complaints policy.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 11 December 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 2 January 2025, which was 8 working days late. It then issued its stage 2 response on 30 January 2025, which was in line with the timeframe specified in its complaints policy.
When responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord identified that it had failed to keep him updated following his reports of a leak. It was also late in acknowledging his complaint at both stages of its complaints process. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered offering compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. These shortfalls have led to a finding of service failure.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was poor in this case. The landlord should consider completing a self-assessment against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, if it has not already done so.

Communication

The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It needs to ensure it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective and regular communication with its residents. In this case, the landlord failed to keep in regular contact with the resident to update him regarding its handling of the reported leak. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord must consider how it can improve its communication with residents.