Lewisham Council (202344524)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344524

Lewisham Council

16 January 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of flooding in a basement.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He occupies a 1-bedroom property with a basement and his tenancy commenced in August 2005.
  2. On 17 October 2023 the resident reported to the landlord a leaking downpipe which caused flooding in the basement. The landlord’s contractor attended the next day and fitted a shoe onto the downpipe. On 25 October 2023 the resident provided a video the landlord which showed flooding of the basement after it rained. A work order was raised on 30 October 2023 for its contractor to investigate the basement flooding and they attended the next day. On 17 November 2023 the resident informed the landlord that its contractor carried out a survey but did not do the job as they said the downpipe was on an adjacent neighbouring property’s side. He explained he had contacted the landlord a number of times about this.
  3. On 24 November and 7 December 2023, the resident asked for an update as the issue had not been resolved and his basement was severely leaking. On 29 December 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. He said he first reported a leak in the basement in March/April 2023, but the issue remained unresolved despite chasing the landlord. The resident added as soon as it rained water started leaking into the basement and he was told by the contractor that they were unable to fix this as the downpipe belonged to a neighbouring property. As an outcome, the resident wanted the downpipe extended to the road and a layer of waterproofing in the front garden to prevent the leak.
  4. On 16 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said its contractor attended on 31 October 2023 and found the property next door had a damaged rain gully which allowed water to seep in the resident’s basement. Its contractor recommended either the neighbour’s gully should be excavated and replaced with a soakaway system or extended with pipes to divert rainwater onto the pavement, and that it would carry out the repair within 20 working days. The landlord added it was unable to find any reports relating to initial investigations in April 2023 which it attributed to a recent major upgrade to its housing management system. It apologised for the service received and offered £100 compensation for the delay in repair.
  5. On 15 February 2024 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said the  work had not been completed in 20 working days as promised. He said the basement continued to flood when it rained causing damp and wanted this fixed. Around 21 February 2024 the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint and said it aimed to issue its stage 2 response by 21 March 2024.
  6. On 4 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It upheld the complaint, apologised that it had not resolved the leak and apologised for the delay in providing its final response. It added while it had asked its contractors to provide a quotation for the proposed works, there had been miscommunication. The landlord noted there were 2 options for remedy as outlined in its stage 1 response. It said it would repair the neighbour’s gully and was awaiting quotes from its contractor and aimed to instruct the works by 10 April 2024. It said once it resolved the leak, it could arrange remedial repairs required such as a damp and mould inspection.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in late February 2024. He said he had pursued a repair for the basement leak since April 2023. He said in October 2023, a repair was carried out, but this did not fully resolve the issue. He added he chased the landlord numerous times and was concerned his health could be affected by damp. As a resolution, he wanted the basement flooding and damp and mould in the property resolved as well as further compensation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident advised that he was concerned the damp may impact his health. It is beyond the remit of this service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as this would be more appropriately dealt with through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused, and this investigation will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of flooding in a basement

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord has an obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the building. The landlord’s website sets out it is responsible for severe water penetration and flooding, uncontainable leaks and that these are emergency repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it “would adopt a ‘right first-time’ approach, where we proactively manage repairs, and the resident does not have to chase works”. It added that if it needed “to carry out an inspection before ordering a repair, we will be clear that this is the reason for the visit, and will arrange any follow on works promptly. Where works cannot be completed in a single visit, we will proactively schedule appointments for follow up visits and keep the resident informed”. The policy sets out that emergency repairs, such as flooding or those that cause major damage to the property, should be attended within 24 hours where it aims to complete the repair at the time. Where it is unable to do so, it will make the situation safe and carry out any follow on work as an urgent or routine repair. For urgent repairs to prevent damage to the property, or where there is a possible health, safety or security risk, these should be carried out within 3 working days.
  3. The landlord’s damp mould and leaks policy dated January 2024 outlines that it will treat all reports of leaks, damp, and mould seriously and will take a solution, focused, holistic approach whenever it can, which puts the resident, not just the property, at the centre of the resolution. It adds it will communicate clearly and keep residents informed of what action it will take, why it is taking it and when it will do this.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises the resident comments that he said he reported the leaking basement as early as April 2023 which he said were made in person. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this and the landlord’s repair logs it shows a repair in relation to basement flooding was raised on 17 October 2023. Following this report, the landlord initially acted appropriately by attending the next day and fitting a shoe to the downpipe. The Ombudsman recognises that its contractor told the landlord that “this is a bigger issue and needs to be investigated by a drainage engineer”. The landlord raised a work order on 30 October 2023 for an engineer to investigate this and they attended the next working day. While it was reasonable for the landlord to undertake further investigation, it is unclear why it took almost 2 weeks to raise the order after the resident’s initial report.
  5. The contractor records showed that having attended on 31 October 2023, they found the basement leak was caused by a damaged rain gully from an adjacent neighbouring property. They said that if this was not addressed promptly a tanker would be required to remove the flood water from the basement. They recommended to either excavate the neighbour’s gully and replace with a soakaway system or to extend the pipes to divert rainwater onto the pavement. They stressed this was urgent and would cause structural damage if not treated.
  6. In this case, the landlord was provided with a video in late October 2023 that showed the extent of the flooding and informed by its contractors that the matter was “urgent and will cause structural damage if not treated”. Indeed, the resident advised this service that when it rained the basement flooded with “several litres of water”. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider this an uncontainable leak and treat it as either an emergency or urgent repair. Yet, no prompt action took place despite it being flagged as being urgent by its contractor.
  7. The resident continued to chase on more than one occasion in November and December 2023. Due to the inaction of the landlord, the resident made a formal complaint on 29 December 2023. In its stage 1 response, the landlord relayed its contractor’s recommendations and advised that it had asked them for an urgent quote and aimed to execute the works within 20 working days. In the Ombudsman’s view, it should have not treated this as a routine repair. In any case, the landlord did not undertake the work within 20 working days as it aimed to do so.
  8. On 2 April 2024 the landlord raised a job to rectify the issue with drainage. Subsequently, on 22 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord as he had not heard back regarding the leak and during recent rainfall mould persisted. He chased again on 1 May 2024 again providing a video showing the extent of the issue and queried why repair had not been completed. The landlord’s contractor attended on 3 May 2024 and subsequently advised “due to ground level we have concerns from a health and safety issue, and breach of [damp proof course], and have installed a temporary measure to divert water away from the property until we can speak to the drainage manager”. While it was reasonable for the contractor to consider an alternative approach on the basis they had doubts about the success of the current method, this should have been discussed much sooner in October and November 2023. Subsequently, on 30 May 2024, work was undertaken to install a new gully and lay a pipe to run along the front wall to guide water toward the street pavement.
  9. The Ombudsman notes that the resident said this issue occurred during periods of heavy rainfall, and therefore the basement was likely not constantly flooding and was not a persistent issue. However, it is appreciated his reports were made from October where rainfall was more likely. Furthermore, the landlord did not carry out the necessary remedial works until May 2024, almost 8 months after the resident’s initial October 2023 report. This was a considerable period of time and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident particularly as the landlord’s own contractor had informed it was an urgent matter that cause structural damage if not treated.
  10. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident did not use the basement as an active living space, this would have caused avoidable distress and worry to the resident, who was likely concerned about his safety and the structure of the building which could be jeopardised by flooding. In this case, the landlord failed to follow its commitments in its formal response and did not action necessary work promptly in line with its urgent/emergency repair timescales. This was a serious failing that caused further distress and inconvenience as well as time and trouble.
  11. On 11 January and 15 February 2024, the resident told the landlord that the flooding caused damp, and that mould got worse every time it rained. However, the landlord did not appear to take any meaningful actions such as damp and mould inspections or works after it resolved the leak in late May 2024. This would have been appropriate for it to do so considering his escalation request and its stage 2 response.
  12. Indeed, in its stage 2 response it said it may undertake a damp and mould inspection after it fixed the leak, however it put the onus on the resident to pursue this instead of proactively taking a solution, focused, holistic approach as per its policy. No damp and mould inspection appears to have taken place to date, and the resident is likely to have lived with damp and mould for prolonged period. The Ombudsman has also seen the resident recently raised a repair dated 6 December 2024 regarding damp and mould in the property.
  13. In line with its compensation policy, the landlord may offer compensation for ‘avoidable’ distress and inconvenience arising from the problem or service failure. The landlord will consider factors including the severity of the issues and the length of time the resident was impacted. For high impact service failures where the resident has suffered inconvenience and/or distress because of a serious or repeat service failure, it suggests compensation awards may be made starting at £251.
  14. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays, in this case, the complaints process did not serve to move the repair for the basement flooding forward, therefore its apology and payment £100 compensation did not adequately ‘put things right’ and did not go far enough considering the impact the landlord’s inaction had on the living conditions in the property, and the time and effort spent pursuing the matter. The resident continued to report the leak but was not given clear times and dates of when suitable and lasting repairs would take place, contrary to its policy. Indeed, the landlord did not apply its repairs policy fairly.
  15. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the reports of flooding was poor. It failed to act with the necessary urgency to undertake an urgent repair and failed to keep the resident regularly updated. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there has been a failure that affected the resident. The Ombudsman considers a further £400 should be awarded to the resident. While the resident has confirmed to the service that the necessary repair was completed, he advised there is a small amount of flooding in the basement. As such, orders have been made below for remedy.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. At stage 2, the landlord aims to provide a written response within 20 working days of the escalation request. Where the landlord is unable to respond fully within 20 working days, it will let residents know if more time is needed and why (usually a maximum of an additional 10 working days).
  2. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 15 February 2024 and the landlord issued its response on 4 April 2024, 34 working days after the escalation request and contrary to its policy timescales. During this time, there is no evidence the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations or advised when the resident could expect its final response. While its stage 2 acknowledgement advised this would be issued by 21 March 2023, this deadline passed and there was no further update. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt his concerns were being ignored.
  3. While the landlord offered an apology in its stage 2 final response for the delay, it would have been reasonable for it to award compensation for this. However, it did not. This was a missed opportunity to put things right. The Ombudsman remedies guidance suggests awards up to £100 for a failing that caused distress and inconvenience but may not have changed the overall outcome of the complaint. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure and an order has been made below for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of flooding in a basement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a further £450 made up of:
      1. £400 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of the leak.
      2. £50 for the failings identified in its handling of the complaint.
    3. Inspect the property to ensure it has resolved the leak and carried out appropriate remedial damp and mould works such as mould washes, where appropriate. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a report of the outcome of the inspection. If further works are required, it must undertake these within an appropriate time period. It must also ensure any areas affected by a leak, damp and mould are made good, if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence that it has attempted to comply with the orders within the above timescale.

 

Chat to us