London Borough of Lewisham (202430563)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202430563 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Lewisham |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
26 November 2025 |
Background
- The leaseholder lets her property to tenants. She contacted the landlord in March 2023 through her property management agent. She reported that her tenants had identified a leak in the kitchen, which appeared to originate from a central block pipe system. The leaseholder later complained about the landlord’s handling of the repair. She brought her complaint to us because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the:
- landlord’s response to a leak.
- landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We found:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leak.
- No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Response to the leak
- The landlord did not manage the leak effectively. It took almost 10 months to identify the source and did not complete repairs within its policy timeframes. Communication with the leaseholder was poor, it did not escalate the matter promptly or provide a suitable remedy for the delay, inconvenience, and time spent pursuing the issue. The landlord missed opportunities to resolve the leak sooner and to offer an apology or compensation. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked sufficient detail and failed to demonstrate learning or steps to put things right.
Complaint handling
- There was a minor delay in the landlord responding to the resident, but there is no evidence of any specific impact on the resident from the landlord taking longer to respond than it should have. The quality of the responses provided by the landlord has been discussed as part of the substantive issue.
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 |
Apology order
The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 05 January 2026 |
|
|
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.
|
No later than 05 January 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The resident told us that she would welcome the opportunity to share her experience with the landlord, to provide them with feedback to help them improve the service they deliver. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to arrange a meeting to discuss her feedback. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
16 March 2023 |
The leaseholder reported a leak in the kitchen area. Her contractor advised that the leak was coming from the central block pipe system and needed to be addressed by the landlord. |
|
29 November 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord, as the leak remained unresolved. She reported signs of mould, which she believed was due to the leak not being repaired. She said the landlord was in breach of the lease and that her tenants were affected by the failure to repair the leak. |
|
17 December 2023 |
In its complaint response, the landlord said an operative could not locate the leak during a visit in July 2023 and that no other flats had reported water ingress. It confirmed that works to trace and repair a leak affecting other flats had been completed. It also stated it had inspected the roof of another flat following reports of a separate leak, but no repairs were needed. The landlord advised that a member of the leak access team would contact the leaseholder within 10 days to arrange an appointment. It provided details of how to make an insurance claim, as it was not responsible for repairing or replacing damaged items inside the property. |
|
15 March 2024 |
The leaseholder escalated her complaint, stating she had not been contacted within the 10 days promised in the stage one response and that the leak remained unresolved. She said her last correspondence with the landlord was in December 2023, despite the leak being reported a year earlier. She also reported that her tenants had identified leaks in two additional areas. |
|
17 April 2024 |
In its final complaint response, the landlord said the leak access team had identified the property where the leak originated but was unable to gain access. It advised that it would try again and might need to force entry. However, the landlord also noted that the upstairs tenant had agreed to be available on 18 April 2024. It upheld the complaint and signposted the resident to the insurance process for any loss or damage to the property. It did not offer any other remedy to the leaseholder. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The landlord has confirmed that the leak has been repaired. The leaseholder confirmed that her insurance claim for damage to the property has been settled. However, she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint because she did not feel the landlord had appreciated the full impact on her of the drawn out repairs process. |
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 |
The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s report of a leak, which caused damage |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
Scope of investigation
- The resident told us that the landlord’s actions have exacerbated her mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.
Repairs to the leak
- The landlord’s leaseholder guidance says leaseholders should contact the repairs team if they are unsure where a leak is coming from. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days and, when this is not achievable, proactively update the tenant.
- The leaseholder’s complaints in November 2023 and March 2024 centred on the unresolved leak into her flat which had originally been reported in March 2023. She explained that the ongoing leak had caused detriment to her and her tenants, and that the landlords lack of action had resulted in further leaks happening and damage being caused. She wanted the landlord to investigate and repair the leak, and to replaster and decorate the damage it had caused in her property.
- In response to the complaints the landlord acknowledged its lack of progress in resolving the leak and apologised for the issues the resident was facing in the property. It said in its final complaint response in April 2024 that it had now identified the source in an upstairs flat. It explained difficulties it had experienced gaining access to that flat, but said that now appeared to be resolved and it would be able to complete the necessary repairs.
- The evidence confirms the landlord had taken a range of actions to investigate and resolve the leak prior to and during the complaint, but that it had done so only intermittently and unsuccessfully, and its communication with the leaseholder was at best irregular, leading to her having to chase it for updates. It was appropriate, therefore, for it to apologise for what she had experienced, and explain how it intended to resolve the leak.
- However, there were several issues in the resident’s complaints which the landlord did not address or respond to. These included:
- The landlord did not provide proactive or meaningful updates and did not consistently respond to the leaseholder’s communications. This was not in line with its leaseholder and repairs policies.
- The resident experienced significant time and trouble, feeling it necessary to escalate the matter to her local councillor and MP.
- The landlord only gained access to the flat above and identified the source of the leak almost 10 months after it was first reported. This was outside the timeframe set out in its repairs policy.
- The landlord did not have a clear plan to escalate the issue when access to the flat above was delayed. Its internal records indicate confusion over which department was responsible for managing the repair.
- The landlord’s internal record-keeping was poor. The landlord’s repair logs did not clearly show what repairs had been completed in the block or whether they related to the leak into the leaseholder’s property. The records also did not support the landlord’s view that the boiler in the flat above had been repaired.
- Its complaint responses did not provide any meaningful clarity on why the delays occurred or how the issue would be resolved.
- The landlord acted reasonably by signposting the leaseholder to make an insurance claim for damage. However, there is no evidence it provided a suitable remedy for the delay, the impact and inconvenience experienced by the leaseholder, or the time and trouble she spent pursuing the matter. The landlord did not offer her an appropriate apology or compensation, despite acknowledging delays had occurred. The leaseholder has told us how her trust in the landlord has eroded since its response to the leak.
- Overall, the landlord did not manage the leak effectively. It failed to identify and repair the source of the leak within a reasonable timeframe and did not maintain clear communication with the leaseholder about what actions it was taking. While it made some attempts to gain access and signposted the leaseholder to the insurance process, these actions did not address the prolonged delay or the impact the leaseholder experienced. The landlord missed opportunities to escalate the access attempts to the other property and did not provide a proportionate remedy for the inconvenience and time the leaseholder spent pursuing the issue. Its response was not in line with the Ombudsman resolution principles: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
|
Complaint |
Complaint handling |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- 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).
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints and responded at stage one within the stated timescales. However, it responded to the stage 2 complaint 2 days later than it said it would. Whilst this minor delay 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 actual quality of the landlord’s complaint responses has been addressed above.
Learning
- The issues in this case occurred before the period covered by Ombudsman’s recent special investigation report, in respect of how the landlords handle complaints and repairs in its homes. The landlord may wish to consider the findings and recommendations of the special report when reviewing this outcome.
- 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.
- Both reports detailed above are available on our website.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s records lacked detail about the steps taken to resolve the leak. While the repair logs noted the reason for each visit, they did not confirm the outcome or specify any follow-up actions required.
- Overall, the landlord’s communication with the leaseholder was poor. It often failed to respond to her or her representatives, and when it did, the updates lacked detail about how the matter would progress. More informative communication could have reassured the leaseholder that the leak was being taken seriously. She said this pattern continued until the matter was resolved. We have made a recommendation about this.