London Borough of Lambeth (202441786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441786

London Borough of Lambeth

29 September 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a flat on the second floor of a block comprised of similar properties. The resident lives with her 2 children, one with special educational needs.
On 3 December 2024, the landlord received a report that there was a leak from the flat above the resident’s property affecting multiple flats below.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 10 December 2024. In summary:
1. She explained that a major leak from her neighbour’s property began to affect the area outside her front door on 3 December 2024 which created a safety hazard. Someone came out that evening and traced the leak, but said the neighbour needed to call and report the issue the next day.
2. On 7 December 2024, she came home to find that water was leaking into her living room through the ceiling. She had needed to use buckets and towels to try and prevent damage. She asked the landlord what was happening on 9 and 10 December 2024 and was told the work would take place on 10 December 2024, only to find that it had not resolved the problem.
3. She said the leak was causing damage to her property and belongings, and having a significant impact on her children. She also included communication from her neighbour to the landlord regarding failed attempts to resolve the problem.
On the same day, she was informed that the leak was from the stack pipe, and the landlord had booked an appointment for 17 December 2024.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 12 December 2024, the landlord said:
1. It understood her complaint was about a major water leak and water gushing outside her front door, safety concerns due to slippery floors and that she had reported the issue on 3 December 2024 but the leak was ongoing and causing damage to the ceiling, decorations, flooring and sofa.
2. It raised a work order on 9 December 2024 to repair a defective plaster patch in the living room and the job was scheduled for 10 December 2024, with a target completion date of 21 January 2025. It said it had apologised for the inconvenience and told her what it was doing to resolve the issues. It partially upheld the complaint.
On the same day, the resident said that she wanted the landlord to escalate the complaint urgently as it was coming up to Christmas and she required it to resolve the issues. She was concerned that her ceiling would collapse if this was not resolved within days. She had been living with the ongoing leak for over a week which was damaging the property and her personal belongings. She wanted the landlord to reimburse her for damaged items and decorate.
Between 12 December 2024 and 31 January 2025:
1. An operative attended on 13 December. They reported that the leak was a waste issue and referred the matter back to the landlord.
2. The resident chased works as she was concerned that the ceiling would collapse. On 14 December, the resident and her family were evacuated with the help of the fire brigade and placed in emergency accommodation. The landlord reported making safe the lights and electrics on 16 December.
3. It reported not being able to gain access to the upstairs property on 17 or 18 December. On 19 December, it completed a dye test, and found that the issue related to eroded copper waste pipes, but the surveyor did not know what work was required. The landlord has said it resolved the leak on 23 December 2024.
4. On 2 January 2025, the resident contacted the landlord and provided further details of her complaint. This included the impact of the leak and living in temporary accommodation on her and her children’s health and wellbeing (including her daughter who had special education needs), a lack of communication about what was happening, a lack of support, damage to her belongings and damp affecting her flooring and furniture, and the financial difficulties the situation had caused. She believed that the landlord had delayed handling the repair until the fire brigade evacuated her.
5. The landlord reported providing a dehumidifier on 9 January, and repairing the ceiling between 11 and 12 January.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 31 January 2025, the landlord said:
1. That an operative attended on 3 December 2024 within 4 hours and identified the issue was related to the neighbour’s waste pipe. It required the upstairs neighbour to raise a repair request for further action. The neighbour scheduled an appointment on 4 December 2024 for it to unblock the sink, which caused delays. Despite this, the leak persisted and by 7 December 2024, water was entering her living room. It noted she experienced ongoing water damage, using towels and buckets to manage the situation leading to disturbed sleep and unsafe conditions for her child.
2. It apologised that it had not resolved the leak first reported in December, and understood the upset and frustration this caused her. It said the operative was unable to resolve the leak from the waste pipe on 3 December 2024 as the upstairs neighbour had not reported the issue. It said it understood her frustration but explained that its policy required the affected resident to submit the repair request to ensure suitable access. It said the policy was necessary to facilitate its repair process, and the delay was unavoidable due to its policy.
3. It said that she could raise a liability claim via its website to claim compensation for damage to the property. Due to the reported ongoing issues, it had asked a surveyor to visit to reassess the leak and review the painting works that it carried out.

Events following the complaint

The resident referred her complaint to us to investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leak, and response to her concerns.
She initiated the pre-action protocol for housing disrepair claims via her solicitor on 21 February 2025 and remains in dispute regarding compensation for damages, remedial work required to the property, and her costs. In September 2025, the resident confirmed that her solicitor was still acting on her behalf but the mater was not yet resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referenced how the situation has impacted her, and her family’s mental health and wellbeing, and caused damage to her belongings. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or damage to belongings. These matters are more appropriately decided by the courts as a personal injury claim, or part of an insurance claim. We do not award damages in the same way that may be awarded via a legal claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
We are only able to consider matters that were raised, and the landlord had the opportunity to address, at the time of the complaint. As such, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from 3 December 2024, when she initially reported the leak, and 31 January 2025, the date of its stage 2 complaint response. We are aware that matters were ongoing following the complaint, and the resident remains in dispute with the landlord about the extent of remedial repairs, and compensation for damages. She has instructed a solicitor to act on her behalf and we understand that this is ongoing.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs manual and the repairs and damp policy state that it is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property, drains, stack pipes, and any fittings for supplying water, gas or electricity, toilet facilities and water heating inside the property. Residents are responsible for blockages, floor coverings, and internal decorations.
It aims to attend urgent emergency repairs within 2 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours. It aims to resolve routine repairs within 3, 7, or 28 working days. It may not meet its timescales if it needs access to another property to fix a repair but cannot get in (for example, if water is dripping through a ceiling, it would need to trace and get access to the flat causing the leak to fix it). However, it may force entry in cases of emergency.
The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, and respond within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may pay compensation where it has established there have been service failures. This could include unjustified delays or failure to follow process. It notes that the investigating officer should check their understanding of the situation with the complainant and obtain the complainant’s own view on an appropriate remedy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

We have found that there was maladministration by the landlord for the reasons set out below.
The landlord was on notice of a leak affecting the area outside the resident’s property, and multiple other properties below, from 3 December 2024. It can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. However, in this case, there were unexplained delays in accurately diagnosing the cause of the leak and the landlord has not demonstrated that it was actively seeking to resolve the problem in line with its repair obligations.
The landlord has not provided clear evidence to document its actions from 3 December 2024 onwards despite our requests for it to do so. It is unreasonable that the landlord was not able to provide a clear audit trail to confirm what happened when asked. We have been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand but the lack of evidence has impacted our ability to complete a thorough investigation.
The landlord initially acted appropriately by arranging an operative to attend as an emergency on 3 December 2024. While they appear to have gained access to the upstairs property to trace the leak, they did not take steps to resolve the issue on the day. It would have been appropriate for it to have taken all reasonable steps to make safe the leak at the time, or to have clearly explained why it was not able to do so. We have not seen a reasonable explanation as to why it was not able to make safe the leak at the time.
In its responses, the landlord said that its policy required the neighbour to personally raise the repair needed with it, and any delay was “unavoidable” due to its policy. We have not seen a policy that requires the tenant in the property where a repair issue originates to report the problem directly to the landlord. This is also an unreasonable approach in cases involving leaks. It is not appropriate to expect a resident affected by a leak from above to rely on another tenant to report the issue in order for the landlord to act in line with its repair obligations.
The landlord has accepted that the resident’s neighbour reported the repair issue to it on 4 December 2024. However, it has not provided evidence to document what it did in response to the report, or that it acted with urgency despite being on notice that the leak was affecting multiple floors of the building.
The resident reported that the leak was entering her property on 7 December 2024. There is no evidence to support that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate, make safe, or address the issue as a matter of urgency which is a failing. The landlord’s records indicate that it was aware the leak related to a “waste issue” from the stack pipe in the building from at least as early as 10 December 2024, and told the resident that there was an appointment for 17 December 2024, a week later. There is no clear explanation as to why the landlord believed it was suitable to leave a suspected leak from a waste pipe for this period without taking action, or considering the risk.
It is evident that there was confusion about dates of appointments. The resident reported that the landlord told her appointments were booked, only to find they were not, and evidence suggests that her neighbour reported a similar experience. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord communicated effectively regarding the steps it was taking to resolve the problem, which likely added to the frustration experienced by the resident.
It is understandable, given the delay and lack of clarity, that the resident needed to approach the fire brigade about her concerns on 14 December 2024. They apparently decided the property was not safe and the resident needed to evacuate. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would have had the opportunity to consider the risk to the resident from the outset and that this may have been avoidable had it acted sooner. At the time, we understand that the leak had been entering her property for at least 7 days. Alongside the delay in investigating the problem, it is unreasonable that the landlord did not make safe the electrics in the property until 16 December 2024, after the resident was evacuated, given the potential risk and her report that water was running through her light fittings.
The landlord did not diagnose the cause of the leak, which it attributed to corroded pipes within the stack, until 19 December 2024. Its records indicate that there was some difficulty gaining access on 17 and 18 December 2024, and it had attempted to inform the neighbour. This may have been outside of its control. However, given that the fire brigade evacuated the resident due to safety concerns, and the suspected presence of waste water, it is reasonable to conclude that this was an emergency situation. We would have expected to see evidence to show that the landlord considered forcing access to allow it to resolve the problem, in line with its policies.
The landlord has said it resolved the leak on 23 December 2024. However, it has not provided evidence to confirm what it did, or how it satisfied itself that its actions would provide a lasting solution within the building. There is also no evidence to show that it communicated its actions to the resident, who remained in temporary accommodation at the time.
The landlord has provided limited information about the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation and did not address this within its complaint responses. It acted reasonably by providing temporary accommodation once the fire brigade evacuated the resident on 14 December 2024, but we have not seen evidence to suggest that it gave her a point of contact or support. The situation was likely to cause significant distress and upset, especially around Christmas period.
We have not seen an inspection report detailing the remedial work needed to the property, or the extent of damage once the landlord resolved the leak on 23 December 2024. While its records indicate that it took some steps to provide a dehumidifier on 9 January 2025, this was 17 days after it had resolved the leak, and it would have been appropriate for it to have provided this before the Christmas period in order to assist the drying out process. While it said it had repaired the ceiling on 11 and 12 January 2025, we note the resident raised various concerns following the complaint about the quality and extent of work required, which does not form part of this investigation.
In summary, it is evident that the situation was distressing for the resident, and we have not found evidence that the landlord acted appropriately in line with its policies or procedures when addressing the leak. It failed to demonstrate that it handled the resident’s reports with sufficient urgency, or that it was proactively attempting to diagnose and resolve the leak. It has also failed to demonstrate that it communicated effectively.
In line with our remedies guidance (available on our website), we have ordered the landlord to pay £450 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced by the resident due to the landlord’s poor handling of her leak reports, and lack of clear communication. Amounts in this range are considered proportionate to put right situations where there were failings which had an adverse impact on a resident, and where the landlord has not acknowledged its failings.
For the avoidance of doubt, none of this compensation is for damages related to disrepair or fitness for habitation, damage to belongings, additional costs, or impacts on health. The resident may wish to seek advice on pursuing this further via her solicitor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

We have found failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to engage with the complaint or its handling of the leak which likely exacerbated the situation and made the resident feel like it was not taking the situation seriously.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 December 2024, which was within its policy timescales at stage 1. However, the response was poor and did not demonstrate that it reviewed its records, analysed its actions in responding to the leak, or adequately considered the resident’s experience.
It provided limited information about what it had done to address or resolve the leak. It noted that it had raised a plastering repair for the ceiling scheduled for 10 December 2024, but failed to recognise that the resident had reported the leak was ongoing, and did not set out how it intended to resolve this. In addition, while it said it “had apologised” we have not seen evidence to show that it did so.
The resident initially escalated her complaint on 12 December 2024, and provided additional reasoning for her dissatisfaction on 2 January 2025. The landlord has provided a stage 2 complaint response dated 31 January 2025, which was 33 working days later, and outside of its policy timescales. The landlord failed to recognise the delay in its handling of the complaint, or offer suitable redress for the delay.
In addition, the stage 2 complaint response was inaccurate and failed to engage with the events that had taken place by the time of its response. It did not address the resident being evacuated from the property by the fire brigade on 14 December 2024, that it needed to provide temporary accommodation due to the ongoing water penetration, or that it understood it had completed work to resolve the leak from the stack pipes at the time.
It primarily focused on how the delay was “unavoidable” due to its policy requiring the resident’s neighbour to report the repair for it to act. The resident had also raised specific concerns on 2 January 2025 about the temporary accommodation the landlord initially provided, that the building was not safe, that it sent incorrect engineers, and that it had not communicated with her. The landlord did not engage with her concerns which is a further failing. It has not demonstrated that it had a full understanding of the resident’s experience, or its own actions. While it said efforts were being made to resolve the issue, it did not explain what these were, or analyse the steps it had taken to determine whether there had been any failing on its part.
In summary, we have found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to use its complaints process to identify where things had gone wrong, explain any limitations it faced, attempt to put things right, or identify any meaningful learning. We have found that the landlord failed to engage with the resident’s complaint or offer any meaningful response or redress. We have made an order below for the landlord to pay the resident compensation for the inconvenience caused by its responses to her complaint. We have also ordered the landlord to complete a management review of the resident’s case to identify points of learning to prevent similar failings in future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £550 compensation comprised of:
  1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble she experienced pursuing a resolution to the leak between 3 December 2024 and 31 January 2025.
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
Within 10 weeks, the landlord must complete a management review of this case to identify learning, and establish improvements it could make to its service to prevent similar failings in future. It should provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman. At a minimum, it should:
1. Compile a chronology of events related to its handling of the leak in the building from 3 December 2024. It should then consider any failings or missed opportunities to resolve the leak at an earlier date.
2. Consider the appropriateness of its policy to only accept repair requests from the occupant of the property where a leak originates.
3. Review the responses to the resident’s complaint and consider training needs for complaint handling staff to ensure that responses adequately consider the circumstances of a complaint in future.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within these timescales.