London Borough of Lewisham (202444157)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about a failure to resolve repairs to a defective downpipe, which he said caused water ingress and damage to the internal walls of his property. He remained unhappy with the ongoing delays and the lack of clear communication.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s report of a leak affecting his bedroom and the subsequent internal damage
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that the landlord is responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting his bedroom, and the subsequent internal damage
   2. maladministration in its associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting his bedroom and the subsequent internal damage

4. The landlord failed to take actions in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. While it acknowledged failings, it did not offer compensation during in its complaint process. It also failed to consider the impact on the resident.

The associated complaint

5. The landlord delayed at both complaint stages and failed to offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the building, including external pipework. Its repairs policy requires it to adopt a “right first-time” approach, proactively manage repairs, and ensure the resident does not have to chase works.
7. The repair policy also says that if it needed “to carry out an inspection before ordering a repair, where works cannot be completed in a single visit, it will proactively schedule appointments for follow up visits and keep the resident informed”.
8. The policy also says that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days and routine repairs within 20 working days.
9. The landlord raised a repair on 29 May 2024 to trace and remedy a leak affecting the resident’s property. It attended 4 working days later in line with its policy.
10. However, the landlord said it sent the wrong trade to the property. An electrician attended instead. The landlord marked the job as complete and failed to arrange a follow-up visit. This was unreasonable.
11. The landlord raised another repair on 3 June 2024 for the same leak. It is unclear if it raised this in error.
12. The resident said the damp in his bedroom continued and linked it to the downpipe. He said an appointment on 28 June 2024 did not take place and that a contractor attended without notice on 17 July 2024. The landlord has not provided records to confirm or dispute these events. Without this information, it is difficult to make a clear assessment of what happened or whether the landlord acted in line with its policy.
13. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged an error in how the repair was allocated. It said an appointment on 9 September 2024 was recorded as no access and the job was closed. It then arranged a further visit for 10 October 2024 and offered an internal plastering appointment for 13 November 2024 as a goodwill gesture.
14. On 10 November 2024 the resident said he had not received any update after the October 2024 visit and that the damage was getting worse. He asked the landlord to cancel the plastering works. This was understandable because the external leak remained outstanding.
15. The landlord raised a repair on 12 November 2024 for the leak and attended on 27 November 2024 to carry out works to repair the leaking section of the down pipe.
16. The landlord attended again in January 2025 to carry out works. It sealed all joints on the downpipe from the top floor down. Its completion report noted the cast iron downpipe required renewing which would be done under major works.
17. There is then a gap in records until March 2025, when the resident chased again, due to the lack of progress with the repair and also shared photos of the internal and external walls in his property. There is no evidence the landlord provided an explanation to the resident.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged delays, upheld the complaint, and identified failings in its handling of the repair. It also set out how it intended to progress the matter and said it would contact the resident on 23 April 2025 with an update. The landlord later informed us that this contact did not happen.
19. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial redress and requires it to consider awards for avoidable distress and inconvenience caused by service failure.
20. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered compensation at any stage of the complaints process. As it did not do so, we cannot conclude that it took appropriate steps to put things right.
21. The resident said his landlord had advised him to claim under his home contents insurance. While this was in line with its compensation policy, it was not applicable in this case as contents insurance would not cover for damages to decorations.
22. The landlord’s compensation policy says that if damage is not covered by the resident’s policy, and the landlord was at fault, the resident may make a claim against the landlord’s insurance.
23. The landlord should have advised the resident about the building’s insurance if he was eligible or the option to pursue a liability claim as he believed the damages was as result of the external leak. The landlord failed to provide this as an option during its complaint process or provide sufficient guidance on how to pursue a l claim.
24. However, the complaint response said it would carry our redecoration works to the affected areas as a gesture of goodwill. This was reasonable as may have avoided the need for the resident to make an insurance claim.
25. In April 2025 the landlord said it reviewed the issue and identified a deteriorating cast iron downpipe as the likely cause. It said the repair would be complex and considered alternative repair options, including full replacement if needed. This was a reasonable approach, as replacement would usually depend on whether repair was practical and economically effective.
26. The landlord recently informed us that its position had changed following further technical review, concluding that sleeving was unsuitable and that specialist replacement works were required. It confirmed that a specialist contractor had been appointed and a site visit was scheduled for 2 June 2026 to assess and progress the works. In light of this planned action, we have not ordered a further inspection. However, given the length of time the matter has remained unresolved, we have made an order for the landlord to provide the resident with an action plan on how it is going to address the repair.
27.  In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to carrying out the necessary works to address the affected internal areas as a goodwill gesture. It restated this commitment in its recent communication with us. Given this, we have made an order for the landlord to complete the associated making good works once the repair has been carried out.
28. The resident continued to live with damage to his wall and bedroom for prolonged period without a clear resolution. This caused distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble. The landlord’s delays and poor communication negative impact on him.
29. In line with our compensation guidance, an award of compensation is appropriate where there has been prolonged delay, avoidable distress, and a failure to follow policy and communicate effectively. There is no evidence the landlord awarded compensation in its complaint process and in this case, the repair still remains outstanding. The landlord failed to proactively manage the repair or keep the resident adequately updated, requiring repeated chasing. While it acknowledged failings, it did not take sufficient steps to put things right. An order for compensation is therefore appropriate to recognise the distress and inconveniences caused to the resident.

30. The Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord’s policy was compliant with the Code.
31. In line with the Code, at stage 1, the landlord should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its response within 10 working days (up to 15 working days).
32. At stage 2, the landlord should again acknowledge the escalation within 5 working days and issue its final response within 20 working days (up to 25 working days).
33. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 September 2024, 18 working days after the complaint. This was not in line with its policy and the Code.
34. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 1 October 2024, 8 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. In total, it took around 26 working days from the complaint being logged to issuing its stage 1 response. This was not in line with the Code.
35. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 10 November 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 18 March 2025, 88 working days later. This was not in line with its policy and the Code.
36. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 15 April 2025, 20 working days after it acknowledged the escalation. In total, it took around 108 working days from the escalation request to issuing its stage 2 response.
37. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not acknowledge or apologise for the delays in its complaint process. It also failed to recognise the impact of these delays or offer any redress for the poor complaint handling.
38. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 for the distress caused by its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. In this case, poor record keeping meant key information about appointments, actions, and decisions was missing, limiting oversight and contributing to delays and uncertainty.

Communication

40. In this case, poor and inconsistent communication, including missed updates, undermined trust, which clearer and more proactive engagement would have helped to maintain and rebuild trust.