London Borough of Lewisham (202329214)

Decision
Case ID	202329214
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lewisham
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	10 December 2025

Background

1. The resident told the landlord that a leak was coming through her living room ceiling when it rained. She complained that the landlord had not taken appropriate actions to trace and repair the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:

a)     Response to a leak and associated repairs.

b)     Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The leak

4. The landlord did not handle the leak as effectively as it could have. It made some efforts to investigate and repair the issue, but the time it took was longer than it should have been. Its complaint responses did not provide enough detail about the reasons for the delay, and the proposed remedy did not sufficiently address the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling 

5. There were delays in the landlord providing its complaint responses, but there is no evidence the delays had an adverse impact on the resident.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its maladministration in handling the report of the leak and 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 07 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 November 2023	The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her report of a leak. She said water was coming through her ceiling when it rained, despite being told that recently completed major works would resolve the issue. She wanted the landlord to fix the leak and said it had been ongoing for several years.
14 December 2023	The landlord said external works had been completed. It explained that a recent inspection found no obvious signs of water entering the flat. The landlord told the resident it would carry out further investigations and would update her on the outcome.
4 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint, saying the leak continued and no one had attended to investigate. She said the issue was causing her stress, with water coming through the ceiling and paint peeling. She also reported that a waste pipe was damaged, which was causing further problems.
13 February 2024	In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had recently visited the property and discussed the steps it would take to resolve the leak. It explained that the roof was still under guarantee, so it could not carry out inspections but would ask the installing contractor to do so. It said it would inspect the balcony above the resident’s property, as it may be the source of the leak. It confirmed the waste pipe had been repaired. The landlord upheld the complaint but did not offer any further remedy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she was withholding rent and considering withholding council tax. She explained the leak caused her anxiety when it rained and had caused damp and mould to the affected area. She wanted the leak resolved and compensation from the landlord for its poor service.

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 the leak
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that following repairs to the leak earlier this year, the leak has reoccurred again in her property. The resident told us that she has contacted the landlord about the issue but has not received a response.
7. As this issue reoccurred after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, we have no power to investigate it. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she should complain to them directly. She may then be able to raise a new complaint with us, once the landlord has provided its response.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to complete repairs within 20 working days and when this is not possible, it should proactively monitor complex repairs and keep the resident updated on progress.
9. The resident’s complaints in November 2023 and January 2024 focused on the landlord’s handling of a leak through her lounge ceiling when it rained. She said the leak had occurred intermittently for several years and the landlord had previously told her major works would resolve it, however, the leak reoccurred in November 2023. She said the landlord had not visited the property to investigate since she reported the issue and that it was causing damage to the ceiling. She said the matter was causing her distress and she was disappointed with the landlord’s response. She wanted the landlord to investigate and repair the leak.
10. In response to the complaints the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in repairing the leak and the time it took to respond to the resident’s complaint. It said in its final complaint response in February 2024 that it had visited the property to see the leak and discuss with the resident the steps it would take to resolve it. It said its leak detection team were arranging to visit the balcony of the neighbouring property and a contractor would investigate the roof. It said it would update the resident once the investigations were complete.
11. The evidence confirms the landlord took some steps to investigate and resolve the leak before and during the complaint process. After it established that the major works had not resolved the issue, it arranged inspections of the roof and the balcony above the resident’s property, as this was believed to be the likely source.
12. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and explain what actions it would take to investigate the leak. However, there were several issues the landlord did not address or respond to. These included:
    1. The distress and inconvenience the resident said had been caused by the recurring leak shortly after redecoration of her property, following recent repairs to the same issue in 2023. She has told us that although she can use the area where the leak is present, she cannot fully utilise the room given its condition.
    2. The presence of damp and mould in the affected area, which the resident said occurred as the leak was not adequately addressed. 
    3. The prolonged time taken to identify the source and complete repairs. Records show the landlord contacted the tenant above the resident (the potential leak source) in August 2024 about repairs, after the resident escalated her complaint to us. The landlord has not provided detailed repair records as part of the investigation, so it remains unclear what other actions were taken.
    4. The time and trouble spent by the resident pursuing the matter. She contacted us in November 2023 after receiving no response to her report of the leak reoccurring. She had to chase the landlord for updates throughout the process.
    5. The landlord’s complaint responses were brief and did not explain the reasons for delays or clarify why it had not inspected the property prior to the complaint.
13. The landlord did not provide suitable remedies for the delay, impact, and inconvenience experienced by the resident, or for the time and trouble spent pursuing the matter. Despite acknowledging delays had occurred, it did not clarify why they happened and did not offer compensation in line with its compensation and reimbursement policy to the resident
14. The landlord’s records show investigations continued after the final complaint response. The resident told us repairs were completed in May 2025, nearly 18 months after she complained. While the nature of the problem appears to have been complex and at times reliant on access being gained to 2 properties to progress matters, nothing in the evidence explains the significant amount of time taken to finally complete the repairs.
15. Overall, the landlord made some attempts to investigate and repair the leak. However, it did not do so as effectively or efficiently as it could have. It did not consider the impact of delays or the recurring nature of the leak when proposing a remedy to the complaint, it took a significant amount of time to finally complete the work, and nothing explains that delay or shows appropriate communication with the resident. Its complaint responses were not in line with the Ombudsman’s resolution principles: to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

16. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says a resident should then receive a formal response to stage one complaints in 10 working days of acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement, unless an extension is required. The landlord’s policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The landlord has not provided evidence of the resident’s complaints being acknowledged. The landlord provided its responses to the resident 14 days and 9 days later than it should have.
18. Whilst delays did occur, there is no evidence of any specific impact on the resident from the landlord taking longer to respond than it should have. The landlord was communicating with the resident during that time to discuss the progress of the investigation.
19. The quality of the complaint responses has been addressed above.

Learning

20. The issues in this case occurred before the period covered by Ombudsman’s recent special investigation report about the landlord, in respect of how it handles complaints and repairs in its homes. The landlord may wish to consider the findings and recommendations of the special report when reviewing this outcome.
21. The Ombudsman has recently published a report on learning from cases involving leak repairs. The landlord should review the report’s findings and consider any lessons that could be applied, particularly those relating to leaks affecting leaseholder properties.
22. Both reports detailed above are available on our website.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord did not provide this investigation with detailed records of repairs at the resident’s property. These would have assisted in establishing what investigations into the leak took place, and when they occurred.

Communication

24. The landlord’s communication with the resident was intermittent. There is evidence of the resident having to chase the landlord for updates or contact the Ombudsman for assistance in progressing matters.