London Borough of Lewisham (202500499)

Decision
Case ID	202500499
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lewisham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	4 February 2026

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local council. Her tenancy began in January 2025. She began to raise concerns about the property’s condition soon afterwards. The property is an old, terraced house. The resident has asthma and her husband is disabled. Their children also have vulnerabilities. These include a kidney condition and communication difficulties.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about boiler issues.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and concerns about boiler issues.
2. Maladministration in its response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting.
3. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Boiler issues

The landlord has not shown that it responded to a gas leak in line with its relevant policy. It did not recognise the full extent of its failures or make a reasonable attempt to put things right. Its inadequate approach may have added to the resident’s distress.

Property’s condition on letting

The landlord was responsible for several failures which adversely impacted the resident. It did not acknowledge these or attempt to put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord was responsible for significant failures throughout its complaints process. The resident was adversely impacted, but it did not make reasonable attempts to put things right.

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 a relevant senior manager (area level or above). 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 05 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her reports and concerns about boiler issues. £400 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her concerns about the property’s condition on letting. £250 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its complaint handling. 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 05 March 2026
3	Update order The landlord must update the resident in writing about its position on her housing transfer. It must also signpost her to its personal injury claims process/team. It must share a copy of its update with the Ombudsman.	No later than 05 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 18 and 25 March 2025	The resident sent the landlord several complaint emails. She said there had been various issues with the property, and it still required extensive works. She also said the repairs would have a significant adverse impact on her family’s vulnerabilities. In summary, her other key points were: The landlord should not have moved her family to the property. Extensive cracks at the property pointed to structural damage. Uneven flooring in the living room was a safety hazard. The landlord should arrange a permanent move for the family.
13 May 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It apologised for a complaint handling delay. It also accepted that it had delayed completing some works. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint. It did not award her any compensation. In summary, the landlord’s key points were: The property needed extensive repairs. To facilitate these, it would arrange a temporary move for the family. The resident could complete a new housing application.
Around 13 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She felt the property’s condition was contrary to the landlord’s lettings standards. She said a temporary move would involve undue disruption for her family. She requested an urgent internal move. We have only seen part of the resident’s request.
18 June 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint. This was on the basis that her concerns were ongoing and required further investigation. It did not award the resident any compensation. In summary, the landlord’s other key points were: One of its senior repairs managers would visit the property. The manager would discuss the resident’s concerns. It would update the resident after the manager’s visit. It would then take “the next steps” to address her concerns.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In October 2025, the resident told us she was concerned about a recent inspection. In January 2026, she told us that the landlord had agreed to a permanent move for the family. She felt it was responsible for multiple adverse impacts including distress and damage to items. She said it should help the family to move and pay them 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 and concerns about boiler issues
Finding	Maladministration

The resident says she was living in temporary accommodation before she moved to the property. She also says her move was delayed by a boiler defect. Her correspondence to the landlord shows that, in the interim period, it extended her temporary accommodation, completed a repair, and adjusted her rent payments. This was a reasonable approach.
From the information seen, the resident moved to the property on 9 February 2025. By this point, the landlord was aware that members of her household had vulnerabilities. This is based on its tenancy signup documents for the property. Overall, there is no evidence to show that the landlord was responsible for any failures at this stage.
Later, the landlord inspected its boiler repair and discovered a gas leak. It says that it found the leak on 5 March 2025. It also says it installed a new boiler on 12 March 2025. From its records, we are unable to fully confirm what happened. We note the repair issue involved potential safety implications. The evidence points to record keeping failures.
From the information seen, there is limited evidence to show that the landlord considered the gas leak from a risk or welfare perspective. For example, there is no indication that it:
1. Considered how the lack of a boiler might affect the family’s vulnerabilities.
2. Recorded whether or not the family had access to adequate heating and hot water.
3. Considered arranging a temporary move for them.
4. Attempted to expedite the installation of a new boiler.
The landlord’s temporary moves policy governs its approach to unexpected/emergency situations. It shows the landlord will assess any damage and complete a risk assessment as soon as possible. If a property is not safe to occupy, it may arrange a temporary move for a resident. In this case, the landlord has not shown that it adhered to its policy.
In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said that her family lacked heating and hot water for 8 days due to the gas leak. The landlord has not disputed this information. The resident also said there was a vulnerable baby in her household. It is reasonable to conclude that this made any lack of heating/hot water more distressing and inconvenient.
During its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged that the gas leak was distressing. It also apologised to the resident. However, it did not mention the wider circumstances around the leak or reported adverse impacts. This was unreasonable. In the circumstances, an apology was not sufficient to put things right for the resident.
The landlord did not engage with the resident’s concerns effectively. Arguably (from her perspective), it ignored the most serious aspects of her complaint. On that basis, the landlord’s unreasonable approach may have added to the resident’s overall distress.
In 2026, the resident told us the landlord supplied 2 temporary heaters in response to the gas leak. This shows it did take some action to mitigate the impact of the extended boiler issue. While this was positive, we were unable to confirm this information from the landlord’s own records. This is further evidence of inadequate record keeping on its part.
In summary, the landlord has not shown that it responded to the gas leak in line with its relevant policy. It did not recognise the full extent of its failures or make a reasonable attempt to put things right. Its inadequate approach may have added to the resident’s distress. We have ordered it to pay her a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen and our guidance on remedies.
We recently completed a special investigation into the landlord. We published our findings in October 2025. We are currently working with the landlord to improve its performance. We have not made any orders or recommendations that would duplicate this ongoing work.

Complaint	Response to concerns about the property’s condition on letting
Finding	Maladministration

In summary, the resident says that the landlord was aware of serious repair issues when it let her the property. She feels it concealed these with superficial repair works. Similarly, she says the property did not meet its lettings standards due to uneven flooring in the lounge. Ultimately, the landlord has not accepted responsibility for any related failures.
Given the resident’s concerns, we asked the landlord for additional evidence. Ultimately, we have seen records of works that it completed while the property was empty in 2023 and 2024. We have not seen any compelling evidence to show that it should have reasonably known about major repair issues prior to the resident’s tenancy.
For example, there is no indication that the landlord overlooked any concerning reports from its operatives about the property’s structure. Records do show that it spent over £25,000 on renovation works between 2023 and 2024. These included a full rewire, a new kitchen, and a new bathroom. This was a significant investment by the landlord.
There is evidence that the landlord had difficulty interpreting its records. For example, the resident has said it gave her conflicting information about whether it had previously completed a structural survey. The parties’ correspondence supports this assertion. Ultimately, the landlord’s lack of clarity undermined the resident’s confidence in its handling.
The landlord’s internal correspondence suggests that the resident reported various repair issues soon after she moved in. One of the landlord’s supervisors inspected the property several days later. On 17 February 2025, the landlord confirmed it would complete some repairs. The resident says it started these on 3 March 2025 (about 3 weeks later).
Based on the period between 9 February and 3 March 2025, it took the landlord around 15 working days to inspect the property and begin repair works. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to routine repair issues within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord adhered to its policy timescale. This was appropriate.
The landlord’s repairs included works to remove and reinstate a small area of plaster. Its lettable standards document shows that walls should be “ready to receive decoration” when a tenant moves in. In this case, the evidence indicates that some repairs were necessary because limited areas of the property did not meet the landlord’s standards.
In her complaint, the resident said the repairs took about 3 days to complete. She also said these involved several operatives and her baby was sick at the time. Her comments point to related distress and/or inconvenience. The landlord did not acknowledge this during its complaints process. If it had, it could have reasonably awarded the resident some compensation.
On 24 March 2025, the landlord raised a works order to address tilted flooring in the property. It is likely this was prompted by a report from the resident. Later, the resident told us that she discovered a flooring defect while she was having a laminate floor installed. It is understood that this involved removing the existing floor coverings.
The landlord inspected the property on 4 April 2025 (9 working days later). On that date, it determined that the property was uninhabitable due to unsafe flooring. It recommended removing sections of the floor to allow further investigation. It said these works would create dust and, for related safety reasons, the family needed to be moved temporarily. From the information seen, the landlord became aware of structural issues at this point.
Soon afterwards, the parties entered a dispute. This involved the scope of the works and the nature of the move (temporary or permanent). Records show this prevented the parties from progressing the recommended works. For example, there is evidence that the landlord offered to arrange a hotel, but the resident declined. From its policies, there is no indication that the landlord was obliged to arrange a permanent move instead.
The resident raised further concerns in her subsequent complaint correspondence. For example, on 9 April 2025 she said there was damp and mould in the property. From 14 April 2025, she told the landlord that her husband had fallen on uneven flooring in the property. Her comments show that she felt it was responsible for an injury.
The landlord did not mention the resident’s additional concerns during its complaints process. This was inadequate. Since the landlord’s complaints policy excludes personal injury claims, it should have reasonably signposted her to its relevant team or process. To date, there is no indication it has done this. The evidence points to a significant delay. We note that insurers specialise in liability issues and claims can be time sensitive.
The landlord did apologise to the resident during its complaints process. This was broadly on the basis that the repair issues were ongoing. The above information shows it did not recognise the full extent of its failures or do enough to address the related adverse impact to the resident. Ultimately, the landlord’s approach was inadequate.
Following its stage 2 response, the landlord appointed an independent structural surveyor to inspect the property. This was a reasonable step given the dispute between the parties. The survey report is dated 31 July 2025. In summary, the surveyor noted signs of movement in parts of the property. Some key points from the report were:
1. The main issue was the “condition of the floor in the front reception room”.
2. The floor’s supporting joists appeared to have rotted away.
3. On the ground floor, there appeared to be a structural issue with a wall in a hallway.
4. There was a visible slope in the upstairs hallway.
5. The landlord should inspect the bearings under the floor space.
6. There was no sign of mould within the property.
In October 2025, the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with the surveyor’s report. She felt it did not accurately reflect the property’s condition. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of a relevant specialist. Around this time, it resumed its search for temporary accommodation. This was a reasonable approach.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 November 2025. It said it had used its discretion to award her a priority move on medical grounds. It also said it had departed from its policies to help resolve the situation. It said that it would supervise the transfer to avoid delays. Ultimately, the landlord agreed to the resident’s preferred outcome at this point.
In 2026, the resident told us that she was still living at the property. She felt that the landlord was trying to force her to move to a flat. For clarity, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSO) can consider complaints about housing transfers.
In summary, we cannot fairly say that it was unreasonable for the landlord to let the property to the resident. The evidence suggests its significant structural issues became apparent over time. However, the resident was adversely impacted because some limited areas of the property were not consistent with the landlord’s lettable standards.
During the period in question, the landlord also gave the resident conflicting information and overlooked important aspects of her complaint. In relation to her personal injury concerns, the evidence points to a significant delay. Overall, the landlord has not recognised the full extent of its failures or done enough to put things right. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (effective August 2024) is available on its website. The landlord’s policy says it complies with the Code.
There were various problems with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, the resident has supplied evidence that she emailed its complaints team on 18 March 2025. The landlord says one of its team leaders called her on the same day (to discuss her concerns). Ultimately, the landlord has supplied little evidence about this interaction.
The Code says landlords must keep a full record of the complaint. This must include the original complaint and any supporting documents (such as call records). The Code also says that if residents express dissatisfaction, landlords must give them the choice to log a complaint. In this case, the landlord has not shown that it adhered to these provisions.
There is other evidence of an informal approach by the landlord. On 25 March 2025 the resident raised concerns about discrimination. These related to comments made by one of the landlord’s contractors. The parties discussed the comments during a subsequent home visit. However, the landlord did not address the matter in its complaint responses.
The resident told us that the contractor’s comments were distressing. She said the landlord had apologised on the contractor’s behalf. She was unsure if it had taken any other actions. Given the serious nature of her concerns, the landlord should have reasonably explored these through its complaints process. It missed an opportunity to show the resident it had completed a thorough investigation and acted on its findings.
It took the landlord around 38 working days to issue a stage 1 response. Under the Code, landlords must respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage 1. In this case, the landlord accepted responsibility for a delay and apologised to the resident. However, it did not recognise the full extent of its failures or the related adverse impact on her.
For example, the landlord’s complaint correspondence shows that it missed at least 2 response deadlines at stage 1. This prompted the resident to chase its response. She also contacted other members of the landlord’s staff to reiterate her concerns. It is reasonable to conclude this was both avoidable and inconvenient for her.
The landlord’s compensation policy shows it can pay discretionary compensation if a resident has experienced “significant ‘time and trouble’ in making a complaint”. In this case, the resident’s experience was consistent with these criteria. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord considered proportionate redress in line with its policy.
The evidence suggests the landlord issued its stage 2 response within 25 working days in line with the Code. In its response, the landlord accepted that it needed to take further steps to investigate and address the resident’s concerns. The Code says that landlords must follow any proposed remedies through to completion. This involves monitoring.
In this case, there is no indication that the landlord used its complaints process to monitor its subsequent actions. Its approach was not consistent with the Code. Arguably, it also showed a lack of reasonable care. We have seen evidence that the resident experienced further distress/inconvenience due to a lack of subsequent updates about her complaint.
For example, in 2026 the resident told us that she had recently asked the landlord for compensation. It is reasonable to conclude that her request should not have been necessary and stemmed from a lack of clarity on the landlord’s part.
In summary, the landlord was responsible for significant failures throughout its complaints process. It departed from its policies and the Code. The resident was adversely impacted, but the landlord did not make reasonable attempts to put things right. It was unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve her concerns. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation.

Learning

General learning

During her complaint, the resident raised concerns around liability issues. For example, she claimed that the landlord was responsible for an injury. The landlord did not address her concerns. Since liability claims are fairly common, it should consider providing relevant training for its staff.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There were problems with the landlord’s records and there is evidence that it had difficulty interpreting these. The landlord could remind its staff about the importance of good record keeping.

Communication

The landlord did not fully engage with the resident’s complaint points. As a result, its responses can be seen as dismissive. The landlord could provide related feedback to its complaint handlers.