Southwark Council (202529735)

Decision
Case ID	202529735
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	28 May 2026

Background

The resident lives in a property managed by a tenancy management organisation (TMO). He experienced intermittent leaks from 2 properties above him since 2023. He made complaints in 2023 and 2024 which he withdrew or clarified were not related to leaks. Therefore, this investigation focusses on the leak reported in 2025 which affected his electrics, and the associated complaint. He disclosed he experiences mental health issues to his landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a leak, including electrics.
We have also considered its complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak, including electrics.
2. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Leak and electrics

There were delays in the TMO completing repairs in line with the right to manage agreement (RTM). The landlord was responsible for monitoring this, but it failed to and did not offer sufficient compensation for the level of failure found.

Complaint handling

The landlord forwarded the resident’s June 2025 complaint to the TMO to respond in line with the RTM. It failed to monitor if the TMO responded and it did not act in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) to ensure the TMO complied with it.

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. It must ensure: its apology is provided by a senior person 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 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £671 made up as follows: £571 for distress and inconvenience caused by its response to a leak including electrics £100 for the distress caused by its complaint handling It must pay this directly to him by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure anything already paid.	No later than 25 June 2026
3	Plumbing inspection order The landlord must contact the occupier of the property immediately above the resident to arrange a plumbing survey. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the survey by the due date. The survey must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete a survey of the type needed. It must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to complete a survey no later than the due date. This is where it has been unable to complete the survey. What the survey must achieve It must ensure the surveyor: inspects the plumbing in the neighbouring property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: the most likely cause of the leak affecting the resident whether it is responsible for repairing or resolving 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 it is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work It must provide us and the resident with a detailed summary of this survey setting out the above by the due date.	No later than 25 June 2026
4	Electrical inspection order The landlord must arrange an electrical inspection of the resident’s property by a qualified electrician by the due date. It must write to him to explain when it is likely to restore electricity to his bathroom. It must provide us with a copy of its letter by the due date.	No later than 25 June 2026
5	Case review The landlord must complete a review of its record keeping and complaint handling procedures with the TMO in this case by the due date. It must provide us with an outcome of this review by the due date. The outcome must include any learning and actions it identifies to improve its repair records and complaint management specifically with TMO’s.	No later than 09 July 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider compensating the resident for any loss of bathroom lighting in line with our compensation guidance until it is able to restore his bathroom electrics.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 June 2025	The resident complained about a leak which he said he reported to the TMO 2 weeks previous. He said it got worse on 20 June 2025 and the electricity supply to his whole lower floor was cut off. The landlord forwarded this complaint to the TMO to manage on 26 June 2025.
28 November 2025	The TMO formally responded to the resident’s complaint. It said it carried out inspections to his property and 2 of his neighbours. It provided details of the actions taken between 24 June 2025 to 10 July 2025. It said it had resolved the leak, allowed a period to monitor this, and no further issues had been reported.
28 November 2025	The resident asked the TMO to escalate his complaint. He felt its response was inaccurate and complained it had not acted on his reports of a leak in October 2025.
3 December 2025	The landlord logged the resident’s escalation request.
31 December 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It said it: had not addressed his complaint within its expected timeframe did not raise any works before June 2025 or raise any further works in October 2025 after he reported further leaks had requested its own repairs team work with the TMO to arrange an urgent inspection and to carry out remedial work urgently awarded the resident £55 for delays in addressing the leak in October 2025
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us there is still a leak from the property above and he refused the landlord’s compensation offer. He said he has not had electrics in his bathroom since October 2025. As an outcome, he wants the landlord to identify and resolve the leak. He also wants more compensation for the distress caused by the leak and loss of electrics.

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 response to a leak, including electrics
Finding	Maladministration

Under the RTM, the landlord and TMO share repairing responsibilities. The TMO’s website states it is responsible for installations relating to water in tenanted properties. Under the RTM the TMO needed to respond to uncontrollable leaks within 24 hours and to controllable leaks within 1 week. As the leak which affected the resident came from a bath in a tenanted property immediately above him, it was the TMO’s responsibility to respond. However, the landlord was responsible for monitoring the TMO’s performance under the RTM.
There is no evidence of when the resident reported the leak in June 2025 to the TMO. This is a record keeping failure and means that we cannot be satisfied it acted in line with the RTM. The landlord noted he declined work to make the electrics safe on 25 June 2025. It is unclear what period or extent to which he was without electricity. However, it ought to have made further attempts to access his property to assess this. This is because the landlord granted to the resident a right to enjoy electrical supply under his lease.
The TMO said it completed a repair in a neighbouring property on either the 8 or 10 July 2025 which is conflicting. As the landlord’s records do not clarify, this is a record keeping failure. The TMO completed the repair outside of the RTM’s 1-week timescale.
The TMO failed to record the resident’s reports of a leak in October 2025 which was a record keeping failure. It also failed to attend until mid-November 2025 when he told it he had no electricity in his bathroom. It did not offer to reinstate the electrics until 2 December 2025, 2 months later. These actions were not in line with the timescales in the RTM.
The resident told the TMO not to send electricians on 11 December 2025 until it had stopped the leak. It confirmed it was investigating the cause of the leak. There is no reference to the electrics being unsafe and it was reasonable for it to complete repairs before reinstating electrics. However, we have not seen that the TMO took prompt action to verify the leak had stopped, so it could reinstate the electrics. He reported another leak on 24 December 2025 and the TMO attended on 6 January 2026 in line with the RTM.
On 31 December 2025 as part of its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident it would arrange an inspection with the TMO and complete any work. It took a further 3 months to complete the inspection and recommend work. This was an unreasonable length of time without any explanation. This resulted in additional delays to resolve the leak and prolonged the resolution of the leak and likely frustration for the resident.
In summary, under the RTM the TMO agreed to carry out its repair functions in line with the stated timescales. It failed to complete repair works in June 2025 in line with the RTM. As the landlord was aware of the TMO’s underperformance, it ought to have had effective repairs monitoring in place. If it had done so, it would have been aware of the delays in it responding to the October 2025 leaks and took action to remedy this.
The landlord was able to act under the RTM to improve services and address service delivery failings. It was able to serve a notice on the TMO and complete repairs itself. It failed to monitor and take ownership of getting regular updates from the TMO. There were also gaps in the TMO’s record keeping which made it harder to effectively monitor it. In these circumstances it is fair for the landlord to take responsibility for the delays.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to award £10 per week for delays and £10 per week for distress. This is where a resident has experienced an injustice by a service failure. This is in line with our compensation guidance which allows for payments of £10 per week where there is a loss of lighting. The £55 compensation it offered for the leak was not proportionate to the level of failures found. This is considering the effect of cumulative delays on the resident’s mental health, which he said caused him anxiety and stress. It also does not account for its unreasonable delay in inspecting the property.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £571 compensation, which includes its offer of £55. This is to compensate for the likely distress caused by the delays. The calculations below are based on there being 4.3 weeks in a month and compensation of £10 per week in line with its compensation policy. This is made up of:
1. £86 for the 2-month delay in responding to the October 2025 leak reports and offering to reinstate the bathroom electrics
2. £129 for the 3-month delay (31 December 2025 to 1 April 2026) in it arranging an inspection promised in its stage 2 response
3. £301 for the loss of lighting to his bathroom between October 2025 and the date of this determination (7 months)
The compensation ordered is in line with our compensation guidance where a landlord’s failings adversely affected a resident. We understand it booked an appointment to attend a neighbour’s property on 7 May 2026. However, as the leaks are ongoing and the resident remains without electricity, we have ordered it to apologise. We have also ordered for it to complete inspections and any necessary work it identifies.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in our Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The landlord shares complaint handling responsibilities with the TMO under the RTM. However, the landlord’s policy does not specifically refer to TMO’s managing complaints on its behalf and so lacks transparency.
The TMO has a separate complaint’s policy to the landlord. This states it aims to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within 3 working days and resolve the complaint within 10 working days. Residents can refer the complaint to the landlord if they remain dissatisfied and the landlord must manage the complaint in line with its complaint policy.
The landlord forwarded the resident’s complaint to the TMO on 26 June 2025 in line with the RTM. It took the TMO 110 working days to respond to this. This was not in line with its own policy. The landlord told us that it treated his complaint as a service request. As he expressed dissatisfaction to it about the leak twice in June 2025 it ought to have treated it as a complaint. Further, it ought to have checked with the TMO to ensure it was managing his complaint appropriately in line with our Code.
The landlord failed to do this until we contacted it on 25 November 2025. Following our contact, it logged a complaint under its own complaint’s procedure on 3 December 2025. This was 112 working days after the June 2025 complaint. It treated the TMO’s complaint response as its stage 1 which it could do as part of our Code. However, the landlord does not refer to this approach in its complaint policy. It also needed to ensure the TMO’s response was in line with our Code which it was not. This is because it did not explain how he could escalate it.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in line with its complaint policy timescale. However, overall, it did not ensure effective management of the complaint. This is because initially it did not recognise it as a complaint and then by not adequately overseeing the TMO’s handling of it.
These failures likely caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and to pay £100 compensation for these. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there are complaint handling failures which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Good complaint handling is crucial to landlords identifying problems and resolving them. Our spotlight report on repairing trust (May 2025) contains useful learning on this. Through robust record keeping, quality assurance of work, and monitoring landlords can create operational excellence. This report explains how good knowledge and information management and performance management using its complaint management system can help (see page 51).

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was lacking. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) shows the difficulties when landlords have no system to monitor what information a third party offers. Landlords can mitigate against this by having a minimum standard of information management as part of any agreement with any TMO.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was poor, it failed to show it offered the resident regular updates or explain how it oversaw the TMO. It is important that landlords provide residents with clear and accurate information on the roles and responsibilities where a third party is involved. Our spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents (March 2022) contains some transferable learning and recommendations. This extends to understanding responsibilities between the landlord and third parties, like a TMO, and communication (pages 22 to 23).