From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Lewisham (202411470)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411470

London Borough of Lewisham

29 August 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 maintenance of the communal areas including:
    1. Drainage issues and pipes leaking sewage.
    2. Damp, mould and algae in communal areas including on the carpet.
    3. Trip hazards and crumbling stairs.
    4. Repairs to communal lighting.
    5. Repairs to guttering.
    6. Block cleaning and internal decoration.
    7. Pest control.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a 3-bedroom maisonette within a block. The landlord is a council. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The landlord’s communal repair records show multiple repairs were raised between May and November 2023. These were for blocked main drains and soil stack (wastewater) pipework, leaking pipes in communal areas, and repairs needed to the communal lighting, stairs and floor tiles. On 5 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report the block was in disrepair and unsanitary. He said the stairs were crumbling and it was difficult to report repairs. The landlord raised a repair, and the resident chased it on 24 and 29 January 2024. He told it on 5 February 2024 that the stairs were a health and safety hazard, and it had booked a repair for 28 February 2024, however it had not agreed to repair any of the other issues he had raised about the condition of the block. He emailed it again on 13 February 2024 setting out how the block was in disrepair. It replied that it would check if the block was on the major works programme and would ask its caretaking manager to contact him.
  3. On 28 February 2024 the landlord said in an internal email it had inspected the stairs which were a trip hazard, “really rough and unsightly”. The resident chased it on 5 and 11 March 2024 to repair the stairs. It emailed him on 18 and 19 March 2024 to say it would complete a deep clean following his concerns. It also booked the repair for the stairs for 9 April 2024 but did not attend due to contractor illness. He emailed it on 12 April 2024 to report blocked drains and leaking pipes, and on 16 April 2024 to chase the deep clean. On 17 April 2024 he made a stage 1 complaint which was about:
    1. A lack of services and difficulty in reporting repairs or issues to the landlord.
    2. Leaking internal and external pipes.
    3. Crumbling stairs including previous non-attendance for booked repairs.
    4. Crumbling brickwork.
    5. The communal carpets and walls were covered in algae and mould due to leaks.
    6. Blocked drains.
    7. Poor cleaning and waste management.
  4. The following day the landlord completed a pest control visit to the block. It acknowledged the complaint on 25 April 2024. Between 23 and 29 April 2024 it exchanged emails with the resident to confirm it had completed a deep clean. It accepted “the required decorative works are hindering our team’s ability to make a huge impact with their cleaning”. The landlord and the resident agreed to a joint block inspection. A local councillor emailed the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 1 May 2024 to express concerns about the condition of the block. The landlord completed a second pest control visit on 3 May 2024. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 May 2024, in which it:
    1. Listed the repairs and issues the resident had reported and said it would arrange an inspection with its repairs and cleaning teams. It invited the resident to attend.
    2. Accepted it had not attended booked appointments to repair the stairs and apologised. It said it had inspected the stairs on 28 February 2024 but had failed to follow up.
    3. Said it was arranging a new stock condition survey programme but could not say when the block would be surveyed or any planned works would take place.
    4. Explained how cleaning was completed by its caretakers each week and said how he could report any concerns directly to the caretaking manager. It also said it had completed a deep clean but “the age of buildings can give the impression that the cleaning has not been as thorough as residents would like.” It also said it completed monthly inspections and that he could attend these if he wished.
    5. Upheld the complaint.
  5. On 13 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord in response to its stage 1 response. He said his core complaint was the level of service across cleaning, maintenance and repairs did not meet the standard expected. The landlord, resident, and councillor attended a site inspection on 17 May 2024. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2024 to set out the repairs and issues identified and the actions the landlord had agreed to take. It replied the next day to confirm it had arranged cleaning of pathways and clearing of drains. It also confirmed on 28 May 2024 repairs it would complete. He asked it for an update on 10 June 2024 noting drains had been cleared and stairs partially repaired. The landlord suggested a second site inspection. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 1 July 2024, and it said it would. He chased it for acknowledgement of escalation on 16 July 2024.
  6. The landlord, resident and councillor attended the second site inspection on 17 July 2024. It exchanged emails with him about the repairs identified to the stairs, communal lights, drainage, guttering, groundworks and pipework. It said it was repairing the stairs on 19 July 2024. It also said, in internal emails, that it would survey the block for pest control issues. On 28 July 2024 the resident used the landlord’s online contact form to say the block was still in disrepair and the issues he had previously raised were still present. He chased it that day and on 30 July 2024 for his stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 5 August 2024 and attended a third site inspection with the resident and councillor on 8 August 2024. It completed its final pest control visit on 23 August 2024 and said there was no evidence of further pest activity. On 28 August 2024 the landlord raised a repair to its drainage contractor. It provided its stage 2 response on 2 September 2024, in which it:
    1. Apologised for its delay in repairing the drains which were overflowing sewage. It said it had approved a quote, and its contractor would complete repairs, but would not provide a date as it was a communal repair. It also said it had not been able to identify any leaking pipework around the block.
    2. Confirmed it had ordered materials to repair the stairs and booked a provisional appointment for 17 September 2024.
    3. Said it had repaired major trip hazards on the external paths and would complete further works on 3 October 2024.
    4. Explained it had received a quote for guttering works on 2 September 2024 but was yet to approve it.
    5. Said it would repair the remaining broken communal lights on 5 September 2024.
    6. Confirmed it had started a further block treatment for pests.
    7. Said it could not include the block on the cyclical redecoration programme for 2024 to 2025 due to budget constraints, but it would complete a stock condition survey that month.
    8. Upheld the complaint.
  7. On 5 September 2024 the landlord repaired the communal lighting. The same day the resident emailed it. He said there was visible pipework leaking in the block causing damp and wet slippery floors. He provided photographs and videos. He also said the communal carpet needed to be replaced due to leaks and an unbearable smell. Between 17 September 2024 and 1 October 2024 the landlord and resident, and the landlord and contractor, exchanged emails about the drainage repairs. The contractor said it received the order correctly on 27 September 2024 and it would complete repairs on 7 October 2024. The landlord renewed a leaking soil stack on 30 October 2024 and marked completed repairs to the stairs on 1 December 2024.
  8. The resident has told the Ombudsman that at the date of this report the landlord had repaired the communal lighting and had resolved the pest control issue. He said it had repaired the stairs but had done so poorly and the repair was failing. He also said several other issues remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s maintenance of the communal areas

  1. Under the lease the landlord covenants, or agrees, to maintain in substantial repair and condition the structure of the building including communal hallways, stairs, and external pathways. It also agrees to maintain fixtures and fittings including drains, gutters, soil stacks and pipework, and to keep communal areas lighted. The landlord further agrees to decorate the communal parts of the building as part of its usual cyclical works. The resident agrees to pay a service charge for the listed services provided including lighting, cleaning, caretaking, repairs and painting.
  2. Within its repairs policy the landlord says it will keep communal areas in a good and defect-free state of repair. It encourages residents to report communal repairs to it. It says it will keep records of its repairs “preferably” with photographs. Its policy sets out timeframes for different types of repairs but says these apply to repairs in individual properties.
  3. While the landlord does not appear to have any set policy timeframes in which to complete communal repairs, these should be completed within a reasonable timeframe based on the nature of the repair. The most urgent repair the resident reported consistently throughout his complaint was the communal stairs. He said they were a trip hazard, and the landlord agreed when it inspected on 28 February 2024. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved, which could have been any residents of or visitors to the block.
  4. The landlord did not attend several repairs appointments and could not provide reasons which was a failing. While it inspected, it accepted within it stage 1 response that it had not followed up on the repair, which was a further failing. While it had completed partial repairs to the stairs by June 2024, this was around 5 months after the resident had reported them. This was not within a reasonable time and there is evidence it had been aware of the issue from August 2023. While it carried out further repairs to the stairs in July 2024 it said it needed to do further repairs within its stage 2 response. It delayed until 1 December 2024 to complete repairs, which was an unreasonable delay. The resident has told the Ombudsman the repairs have not lasted, which is a further failing.
  5. There is evidence of multiple and consistent repair requests for blocked main drains and soil stack pipework from May 2023 and throughout the course of the complaint. After the resident raised blocked drains in his stage 1 complaint on 17 April 2024, the landlord did not commit to raising a repair until 24 May 2024 which was an unnecessary delay. While the landlord did then complete works the issue returned. It then delayed until the end of August 2024 to raise a new repair, which it did incorrectly, which was a further failing. Due to this there was a further delay in the contractor receiving the correct works order. The contractor said it would complete repairs in October 2024, but the landlord has failed to provide evidence of completion.
  6. The landlord’s records show it replaced a soil stack pipe on 5 March 2024. The resident continued to report a leak but within its stage 2 response the landlord said it could not find it, which was a failing. The resident provided evidence of the leak. It took until 30 October 2024 for it to repair the leaking soil stack, which was not within a reasonable time. The resident reported the combination of leaks, or a continuous leak, had damaged the walls and communal carpet. There is no evidence the landlord completed any repairs to the walls which was a failing. It also denied his request for a new carpet and failed to consider any other measures it could have taken, such as professionally cleaning the carpet. This was a failing as the carpet potentially posed a health and safety, trip or slip, hazard.
  7. Following a site inspection the landlord correctly raised a repair for the communal lights. It attended within a reasonable time and identified the issue and that a follow-on appointment was needed. It completed repairs in September 2024, as set out within its stage 2 response, within a reasonable timeframe. It is not clear from the evidence when pests were first reported to the landlord. It raised a pest control job and attended for 3 visits from April to August 2024. The landlord correctly took responsibility for the pest control issue in the communal areas as per its pest control policy.
  8. Regarding cleaning, the landlord has provided information about communal cleaning on its website. The webpage was published in February 2024 and will be referred to as its policy for ease of reading. It explains that cleaning is completed by the estate or block caretaker, and lists cleaning tasks they will complete and the frequency of cleaning. The landlord correctly explained its policy within its stage 1 response. When the resident raised concerns about block cleaning the landlord’s caretaking manager communicated with him which was positive. It also agreed to carry out a deep clean, which was solution focused. The landlord has failed to provide evidence of the clean but did explain to the resident what it had done.
  9. Positively, within its stage 1 response, it invited the resident to attend a monthly block inspection. This was in line with its policy. However, the landlord has failed to create, retain, or provide any evidence to the Ombudsman that it carries out inspections, or any of the reports or records of any inspections. This is a knowledge and information management failing.
  10. The landlord accepted the appearance of cleaning was limited due to the age and decorative state of the block. In response to the resident’s complaint about the appearance of the block the landlord correctly considered its cyclical programme. In its stage 1 response it said it was arranging stock condition surveys. The landlord has not provided a policy on cyclical works to the Ombudsman, but it is standard industry practice to survey blocks and then place them onto a programme of works, based on condition and time passed since works were last completed. It said it could not add the block to that year’s programme in its stage 2 response, due to budgets. The Ombudsman accepts that landlords need to manage their budgets and so this was not an unreasonable decision. Positively, it confirmed it would survey the block.
  11. When the resident raised his concerns for the block the landlord was proactive in providing a named member of staff he could contact. It suggested a joint site inspection as part of its stage 1 response and completed 2 further inspections with the resident and the councillor. The landlord demonstrated that it wanted to put things right and its communication with the resident was good. However, while upholding both complaints it failed to recognise the efforts of the resident in trying to get the issues resolved. Due to this, and the failings outlined above, overall, there was maladministration which caused inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact on the resident and order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint just outside of its 5 working day complaints policy timeframe. It provided its response within its policy timeframe. When the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 1 July 2024 the landlord failed to do so, despite confirming his request that day. He had to chase it 3 further times before it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 5 August 2024. This was not in compliance with its 5 working day policy timeframe or paragraph 6.11 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 21 working days after it acknowledged escalation, and 46 working days after the resident first asked to escalate his complaint. This was not in line with its 20-working day policy timeframe or paragraph 6.14 of the Code. The landlord failed to acknowledge any complaint handling failings within it stage 2 response which was a further failing.
  3. There was service failure, which caused further time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s maintenance of the communal areas.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £500 compensation made up of:
      1. £400 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in maintenance of the communal areas.
      2. £100 for the further time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Provide the outcome of the stock condition survey of the block, and an anticipated timeframe for when cyclical works may take place, to the resident and this Service.
    4. Re-inspect the communal stairs and complete any further repairs required.
    5. Inspect the communal walls adjacent to the repaired leaking soil stack and complete any plaster or decorative repairs needed.
    6. Replace, or professionally clean, the communal carpet affected by the leaks and provide evidence of this.
    7. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.