Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London Borough of Lewisham (202424526)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424526

London Borough of Lewisham

30 July 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a flat within a block. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The resident does not occupy the property but sublets it to tenants.
  2. On 15 July 2024 the resident told the landlord there was a leak coming through the ceiling from the flat above. He said the kitchen, hallway and bathroom were affected by water ingress.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 July 2024. He said several visits to repair the leak had not resolved the issue. He explained that the tenant residing in the property had 2 children aged under 3 years old and had no lights currently working in the property due to the water ingress.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 August 2024. It provided a history of repair work carried out to rectify the leak. It apologised for not handling the repair work efficiently.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 12 August 2024. He was unhappy that its response did not set out any suggestions to improve the repair service.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 23 September 2024. It apologised for delays in repairing the leak. It set out some measures it was implementing to improve its repair service.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. He is seeking compensation and for an improvement in the landlord’s repair service.

Assessment

Reports of a leak

  1. The lease sets out the landlord is responsible for maintaining sewers, drains, soil waste and other pipes installed in the building for the purpose of drainage. This includes the external drainage and communal pipes within the building.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
    1. Attend to emergency repairs and make safe within 24 hours.
    2. Complete urgent repairs within 3 working days.
    3. Complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The policy adds that where the landlord is unable to complete a repair on a single visit, or within its expected timeframes, it will keep the resident updated with progress including arrangements for further visits.
  4. In reporting the leak to the landlord on 15 July 2024 the resident said water was coming through the ceiling in several areas. The landlord appropriately contacted the resident of the flat from which the leak originated and asked them to return home so it could attend to rectify the issue. It raised an emergency repair which it attended the same day. This was in line with timescales set out in its repairs policy.
  5. Upon attending to carry out the emergency repair work on the same day, the landlord was unable to gain access to the upstairs property. It advised the resident to contact London Fire Brigade as the water coming through the ceiling was uncontainable. The fire brigade attended the same day and isolated the power to the resident’s lights due to water ingress making use of them unsafe. This meant there were no working lights throughout the property.
  6. The landlord re-attended the emergency repair on the same evening of 15 July 2024. It gained access into the upstairs flat and found a blocked soil stack was causing the leak. It was unable to rectify this and recommended that a visit from drainage engineer take place to resolve the blockage.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord the following day to obtain an update. Given that the landlord had been unable to rectify the issue on its previous visit it would have been reasonable for it to have contacted the resident to explain its next steps. This would have demonstrated a proactive approach and that it was following action set out in its repairs policy.
  8. Despite the previous visit highlighting that the problem was a drainage issue, the landlord arranged for plumbing contractors to attend on 16 and 17 July 2024, instead of drainage contractors who are the experts. They were unable to rectify the issue as they did not have the necessary equipment needed to clear the blockage. The records indicate that on 16 July 2024 the contractor requested for the landlord to approve necessary follow-on work. They said a camera survey and specialist drainage machine were required to rectify the issue. They noted access to both affected properties would be necessary to complete repair work. They fed back to the landlord that the household residing in the resident’s property were vulnerable with 2 children aged under 3 living within the home.
  9. The evidence shows that there was a delay in the landlord authorising this follow-on work recommended by its contractor. Despite its failure to authorise this, it raised new repair jobs and instructed its contractors to attend on a further 3 occasions between 19 and 23 July 2024. This led to significant frustration for the resident as none of the operatives who attended had the relevant equipment to complete the repair work. There is no evidence that it kept him informed of the situation during this time, with records indicating he was chasing it daily for a resolution due to continued water ingress. Its poor communication around the issue was unreasonable, particularly given its awareness of the vulnerabilities present in the household.
  10. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it authorised the required repair work or the reason for its delay to do so. After further chasing by the resident, its contractor attended on 25 July 2024 with the relevant equipment and completed the work. Its completion of repair work 8 working days after notification of the issue, was outside of the timescales set out in its policy for urgent repairs. Given its awareness that there were no working lights in the resident’s property and that water was continuously leaking through the ceiling, its delay was unreasonable.
  11. It was appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with contact details for its buildings insurance team in its stage 1 response on 12 August 2024. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its handling of the leak. It did not however, offer him any redress nor did it set out any learning that it would implement following its investigation into the issues. This led to the resident’s request for it to escalate his complaint on the same day.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 12 August 2024 apologised for its delay in completing the repair work. Whilst it acknowledged that there had been a delay in it approving the necessary follow-on work, it gave no explanation for this. Although it set out measures it had implemented to improve communication, such as upgrading its housing management system, it did not recognise that these had not led to a satisfactory experience for the resident in this instance and that its communication had been poor.
  13. The landlord’s final response addressed the resident’s frustration at a perceived lack of ownership by it throughout the repairs service. It explained it was unable to dedicate one staff member for each repair journey due to the volume of repairs it handles. It said that it was recruiting more staff in attempts to improve its repairs service. We recently undertook a special investigation into the landlord. This allows us to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of the expected report will be relevant for its general handling of issues similar to those identified in this case.
  14. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  15. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delays in completing repair work. However, its failure to offer any redress to the resident in line with its compensation policy, meant it did not fully recognise the effect of its failings. Our remedies guidance provides for compensation in the range of £50-£100 for situations where there was failure by a landlord which it has not fully put right, and we have made an order in that regard.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. At either stage, if the response cannot be completed within these timescales, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales.
  2. At both stages of the complaint process the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint outside of the timescales set out in its policy. While it apologised for this when issuing its acknowledgement, it failed to offer any redress to the resident within its responses.
  3. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 12 August 2024. The landlord responded to this on 14 August 2024 and said it could not escalate to stage 2 as the resident had submitted an insurance claim which its insurance team was investigating. Given that the substantive issues included in the complaint were related to the functions of the landlord this was inappropriate.
  4. The resident responded to this contact on the same day and said he did not feel that his insurance claim was relevant to his complaint escalation. It would have been reasonable for it to respond to this or address the point in its final response. There is no evidence it done so.
  5. The landlord did not demonstrate any learning or offer any redress for its complaint handling failures in its responses. We have, therefore made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance as set out above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action and must provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £150 broken down as follows:
      1. £100 for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
      2. £50 for its complaint handling failures.
      3. This payment must be paid directly to the resident and not to his rent account.