London Borough of Lewisham (202450546)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202450546

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

London Borough of Lewisham

Landlord type

Local Authority / ALMO or TMO

Occupancy

Secure Tenancy

Date

10 December 2025

Background

  1. The resident reported incidents of anti‑social behaviour (ASB) involving his neighbour. The neighbour also made counter‑allegations about the resident. In addition, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs to his property and requested adaptations to better meet his needs.

What the complaint is about

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
    3. repairs to the guttering.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
  2. We have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
  3. We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the guttering.
  4. We have found there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

  1. The landlord did not demonstrate that it investigated some of the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy.
  2. Although there were difficulties in progressing repairs to the kitchen and bathroom, the landlord followed its repairs policy. It consulted with the OT, attempted remedial works, and communicated its responsibilities to the resident.
  3. The gutter repair was delayed and not completed in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
  4. The landlord delayed its response to the resident’s complaints, which did not comply with its complaints policy.

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:

  • The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
  • It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

07 January 2026

 

Compensation order

 

The landlord must pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. This includes:

  • £50 for its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
  • £100 for its handling of repairs to the gutter.
  • £50 for its complaint handling.

07 January 2026

 

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord to produce an action plan for completing the kitchen repairs, setting out timelines, and communicate this in writing with the resident.

The landlord to consider its position about the resident’s request for reimbursement for the works he arranged to the bathroom and provide a clear explanation to the resident about its decision

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

13 December 2024

The resident raised a complaint about:

  • His request for kitchen repairs to be completed.
  • Adaptions he said were needed to his property, including an additional door entrance and suitable bath.
  • Feeling unsafe in his property following an incident with his neighbour.

8 January 2025

The landlord issued its stage 1 response.

  • It acknowledged the resident’s request for an adapted kitchen. But explained this would need to be assessed by Occupational Therapy (OT).
  • It explained it was still investigating the resident’s report of ASB. Due to counter allegations, the investigation was ongoing.
  • It clarified parking allocations for the resident and his neighbour.

7 February 2025

The resident escalated his complaint.

  • He felt the landlord put him at risk by not completing various repairs to his home, including the bathroom, kitchen, and guttering.
  • He was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not complete adaptions.

3 April 2025

The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained:

  • The OT assessment found he was adequately housed. It did not recommend any new adaptions.
  • Repairs had been delayed due to the resident’s refusals of works. The landlord proposed a repair plan.
  • It reminded the resident of his tenancy obligations: damage caused by misuse must be repaired at the resident’s expense, and operatives may withdraw if misuse is suspected.
  • It confirmed the gutter repairs had been completed on 27 March 2025.
  • Its ASB team was investigating his neighbour’s complaint while also addressing concerns about the resident’s behaviour towards staff. It reminded him of its zero tolerance rules under his tenancy agreement and warned that enforcement action may follow if breaches continued.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident was unhappy with how the landlord dealt with his ASB reports and repairs. He was seeking the landlord to:

  • Complete all repairs, including adaptions.
  • Compensate him.

 

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

Antisocial behaviour

Finding

Service failure
  1. The resident made further reports of ASB after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about the ongoing ASB. Therefore, we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s actions after its final complaint response.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says:
    1. Responses to ASB vary, aiming to prevent issues, support victims, or enforce against perpetrators.
    2. Residents may be supported to gather evidence (Noise App, diary sheets, mobile CCTV) where enforcement is likely.
    3. The landlord works with agencies such as police and social services to tackle ASB effectively.
  3. Between July 2024 and March 2025 the resident’s neighbour had made several reports about his behaviour. During this time the resident had also raised reports about his neighbour. In particular he said he was physically assaulted by the neighbour’s son on 1 September 2024. This occurred due to disputes about a parking bay. The resident stated the neighbour’s son had pushed him from his scooter and provided video footage of this.
  4. The landlord held a management meeting on 3 September 2024 to discuss the incident. It also arranged a welfare visit on 5 September 2024 to discuss the concerns with the resident and collect evidence. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and proportionate; this ensured the resident’s welfare was considered and relevant information was obtained.
  5. The landlord appropriately discussed concerns with both parties. It visited the neighbour in October 2024 to discuss concerns, it was unable to visit sooner due to availability. The landlord identified the parking bay in dispute belonged to the neighbour as it was stated in her lease agreement. The landlord explained its position to the resident and to resolve the matter it allocated a parking bay to both the resident and the neighbour.
  6. The landlord’s actions were proactive and reasonable, as it sought to resolve the dispute fairly, provided clarity to both parties, and ensured that each had an allocated parking bay to prevent further conflict.
  7. There was police involvement regarding the incident. As there was an ongoing investigation with the police about the reported assault, and a court hearing upcoming, the landlord was unable to conclude whether any enforcement action would be taken against the neighbour at that time.
  8. The landlord acted reasonably and explained its position to the resident. While the delay in resolving the ASB report caused distress, the landlord proportionately waited for the police investigation before deciding on further action. The court heard the resident’s case and dropped the charges. Afterward, the landlord closed its ASB case.
  9. Throughout the ASB investigation the housing officer asked the resident if he would benefit from any support, but this was declined. We have not seen a record of any conversation that took place, however on 28 January 2025 the landlord confirmed he had been offered support.
  10. Because records are absent, we cannot verify the extent of these discussions between September 2024 and January 2025. The landlord should clearly document such conversations in future to provide an accurate record of the support offered.
  11. In November 2024 the resident reported that his neighbour obstructed the communal part of the driveway with pots and plants. He explained he used a wheelchair and needed that area to be clear. We have not seen any records showing the landlord investigated these concerns or took action. We see a later report of the same issues was made in May 2025.
  12. The landlord’s records should demonstrate how it responded to the resident’s concerns about the driveway obstruction. While we note in May 2025 the landlord determined the pots were not obstructing the path, it is unreasonable that the landlord has not recorded any evidence of action taken before this.
  13. In December 2024 the landlord received ASB reports about the resident from the neighbour. It discussed concerns with both parties and provided a verbal warning to both the resident and the neighbour to not engage with each other, whilst the ASB case was ongoing. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and proportionate given the ongoing tension between the resident and neighbour.
  14. On 10 February 2025 the resident reported that his neighbour’s guest had blocked his car parking space for 90 minutes. He also reported that on 13 January 2025 he was unable to go out because of his scooter being blocked in. He requested the landlord look at this under its ASB policy.
  15. The landlord responded on 26 February 2025, apologised for the delay, explained this was because of staff shortages and asked when the resident was available to discuss the ongoing concerns. There is no record to show if a visit took place, however the landlord did attempt to speak with the resident twice in March 2025, but the call was terminated due to the resident’s behaviour.
  16. The landlord visited the resident on 9 April 2025 to explain its investigation into the ongoing ASB. The landlord explained it had viewed over 10 videos which showed the resident engaging in ASB. The landlord noted the resident’s behaviour towards its staff was also unreasonable.
  17. Based on this evidence it issued the resident with a notice of seeking possession and explained that if the resident’s behaviour continued, he would be at risk of losing his property. During this meeting the resident had made threats to harm the neighbour, the landlord informed him that threats of a serious nature would need to be reported to the police.
  18. While this was distressing for the resident, the landlord acted appropriately by visiting the resident and explaining the outcome of its investigation. It acted in line with its ASB policy by informing the resident that threats of physical violence would be reported to the police.

Summary.

  1. We note the landlord’s actions were mostly positive in addressing the resident’s reports of ongoing ASB. However the landlord missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s plants pots obstructing his path in November 2024. Therefore we have found there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the report. We have made an order for the landlord to compensate the resident in line with its compensation policy.

Complaint

Repairs to the kitchen and bathroom

Finding

No maladministration
  1. We recognise that the resident explained issues regarding repairs have continued after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint process. While this has been noted as context, for the purpose of this investigation we have only considered the landlord’s actions until the end of its complaints process. This is because we need to allow the landlord the chance to look into these matters.

Kitchen repairs.

  1. In November 2024 the resident reported collapsed kitchen units and holes in the walls allowing mice to enter. The landlord responded within its 20 day repair priority timescale by raising an order to repair, however the resident explained that the units had been repeatedly repaired, were old, and now required full replacement.
  2. On 9 December 2024 the operative found the kitchen in poor condition and noted it may require a renewal. The resident requested a non-adapted kitchen with standard height counters and structural alterations such as converting a window into a doorway.
  3. On 12 December 2024 the landlord provided an update to the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise him that an operative would first need to assess whether the kitchen was repairable before any referral for a full renewal could be made. We find it acted in line with the repairs policy.
  4. The landlord consulted with its Asset Management Team, who is responsible for kitchen renewals about the resident’s request. It appropriately updated the resident explaining that adaptions would need to be assessed by OT.
  5. On 22 January 2025 OT did an assessment to review the resident’s disabilities to determine whether his currents needs are being met, as well as to consider his request for alterations to his home. OT found the resident was adequately housed in an adapted property and no new adaptations or amendments were required. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 February 2025 to explain that the units in the property had been lowered to ensure access to kitchen facilities with ease. As the resident is a wheelchair user, it did not find it necessary to alter the kitchen to standard height.
  6. We understand the resident was unhappy with the outcome. However it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of OT. Following this, it took steps to raise repairs for an operative to attend to fill the holes and repair collapsed kitchen units. It also wrote to the resident on 14 February 2025 to explain next steps.
  7. When the operative attended on 14 February 2025, he noticed the kitchen doors had been removed and advised that a follow up visit would be needed.
  8. The landlord visited the resident on 20 February 2025 to confirm what works would be carried out. It explained that it would not complete any alterations, just remedial repairs. The landlord states that on 21 February 2025 the repairs team spoke to the resident about the repairs, however it was unable to progress with necessary repairs as the resident had refused for these to be completed. We have not seen a record of this conversation. However correspondence supports that the landlord was having difficulties in carrying out repairs to the resident’s property in March 2025.
  9. It was appropriate that following these challenges the landlord had an internal meeting on 13 March 2025 to discuss what actions it would take to address the ongoing repairs needed. It agreed that the kitchen would not be replaced, but broken cupboards would be made good. It informed the resident of its position in its stage 2 response on 3 April 2025. The resident agreed, but asked the landlord to take out the collapsed units and fill holes behind these units before replacements were fitted.
  10. We understand there have been challenges with completing the kitchen repairs and these repairs remain outstanding. The records show that after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint process visits were attempted, however there were challenges in carrying out repairs as it says the resident had refused these.
  11. Overall we find the landlord acted proportionately and within its obligations by attempting repairs, consulting with OT, and explaining its responsibilities to the resident. However, as repairs remain outstanding, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide a clear action plan to repair the kitchen.

Bathroom.

  1. When the resident moved into his property, the landlord had left a bath in situ. The landlord had already adapted the bathroom to suit the resident’s need to have a wet room for showering.
  2. On 26 January 2025 the resident reported that his bath collapsed. The landlord arranged an inspection on 29 January 2025 and also arranged for the bath to be refitted and associated works carried out for 18 February 2025.
  3. The resident requested that the landlord install a larger bath, explaining this was needed due to his diabetes and weight. The landlord acted appropriately by referring the request to OT. OT assessed the resident’s needs and did not support the adaptation and recommended the continued use of the existing wet room for the resident’s safety. It explained the resident already had suitable bathing facilities through a step-free wet room, which met his accessibility requirements.
  4. While we acknowledge the resident’s frustration that the landlord did not agree to install a wider bath, the landlord followed the advice of OT and explained its position to the resident. The landlord’s actions were reasonable.
  5. An operative visited the property on 20 February 2025 to confirm with the resident the bathroom works that were agreed, including fitting a new bath and renewing the floor.
  6. In March 2025 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the outstanding repairs, it also reiterated that it would not install a larger bath, it would only repair like for like. The resident was unhappy about the OT assessment and insisted on having a larger bath instead of a shower.
  7. Following this the landlord had a meeting to discuss the actions it would take to address the ongoing repairs to the bathroom. On 3 April 2025 the landlord discussed its stage 2 response with the resident and clarified what works it would carry out to the property. The resident accepted this proposal on 5 April 2025. However the landlord faced challenges when attempting to carry out a repair. On 13 May 2025 the operative informed the landlord that the resident had refused the works.
  8. Overall, we find the landlord was taking appropriate steps to progress the repairs in line with its policy and the recommendations made by the OT. While the resident wanted a larger bath and chose to hire his own contractors to install one, the landlord was not required to provide this and clearly explained its position to him. Although there were delays, the evidence shows the resident contributed to these, and overall we find the landlord’s actions were proportionate in the circumstances.
  9. We acknowledge that the resident is seeking reimbursement for the cost of replacing his bathroom. As the resident completed this work after the landlord’s internal complaint process ended, the landlord has not had the opportunity to address this request. We have recommended that the landlord considers its position about these costs and provides a clear explanation to the resident about its decision.

Complaint

Repairs to the guttering

Finding

Service failure

Gutters. 

  1. On 18 October 2024 the resident reported that the gutter was leaking. The landlord arranged an inspection on 18 November 2024 and its contractors stated works were completed. However this was incorrect, which resulted in a delay to completing works to the gutter. The landlord completed the gutter repair on 27 March 2025.
  2. While we note the landlord said there was confusion on what works had previously been carried out, it was unreasonable that the repair was not correctly identified and completed in a timely manner. This caused avoidable distress to the resident.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Service failure 
  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to:
    1. Acknowledge complaints in 5 working days.
    2. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
    3. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
    4. Update the resident if more time is needed to investigate the complaint. The landlord may extend its response time up to 10 additional working days at stage 1 and up to 20 additional working days at stage 2, provided it informs the resident of the delay.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 13 December 2024, however there is no record to confirm when the landlord acknowledged this complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 January 2025. This exceeded its expected timescales. We recognise many services are affected by the holidays and delays in responding to resident’s may be slow. However we would have expected the landlord to have communicated clearly with the resident about timescales. We have not seen evidence this was done.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 February 2025 and the landlord acknowledged this on 19 February 2025. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 March 2025 to explain it would need an extension of 10 days to respond to his complaint, due to the complexity of the case. The landlord should have provided the resident with an update by 28 March 2025, however the response was not provided until 3 April 2025.
  4. We recognise the landlord’s policy allows it to extend a response up to 20 working days. However the landlord did not appropriately update the resident to inform him of further delays, which added to the inconvenience caused.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained there were challenges discussing the complaint with the resident which resulted in it having to terminate calls in March. Although we recognise these difficulties, the landlord did not explain why this prevented it from sending a written response on time. We find the delays in responding to the complaint were unreasonable and caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident.
  6. Overall the landlord’s delays at both complaint stages were unreasonable and not in line with its policy. It also failed to acknowledge these delays. We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We have made an order for the landlord to compensate the resident in line with this. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

Communication and knowledge information management (record keeping).

  1. As set out in this report, there were times when the landlord’s records did not fully document the actions it had taken. The landlord should therefore consider the learning it can take from this investigation – in particular it should ensure all actions, contacts, and support offers are clearly documented to provide transparency and evidence of its response.