London Borough of Lewisham (202501043)

Decision
Case ID	202501043
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lewisham
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a flat contained within a wider block of flats. In 2024 the resident reported leaks into their bathroom. The landlord disconnected electrics in the bathroom and investigated water ingress from other flats, and from the roof of the building. The resident has reported that the leaks have caused extensive damage and remain unresolved.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of leaks into the bathroom.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of leaks into the bathroom.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s position at the end of its complaints procedure was reasonable. It made an offer of compensation which was proportionate to the failings identified and it set out a list of appropriate actions it was going to take to resolve the leaks. However, since then it has been unable to complete the repairs it committed to during the complaints procedure due to further leaks from other sources being identified. It has not taken steps to address the new leaks in line with its repairs policy, and it has not kept the resident updated on when it anticipates the planned repairs will take place. This means that it has not proactively done enough to put matters right for the resident.
The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its policies. We did however highlight some potential learning for the landlord.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £1,100 made up as follows £100 for the distress associated with the landlord’s failure to manage the repairs appropriately after new leaks were identified. The £1,000 in compensation it committed to pay at stage 2 if it has not yet paid this amount.	No later than 26 March 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection to inspect the current condition of the bathroom, and whether any internal leaks can be identified. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the condition of the bathroom and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the bathroom is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair. The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 26 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord is to arrange for a suitably qualified professional to inspect the building roof to assess: If there are further roof leaks. The expected lifespan of the building roof. If the roof requires immediate renewal, or an anticipated plan for future. Following this inspection the landlord is to arrange any required repairs, and to prepare a plan for when the roof will be renewed. The landlord is to provide us and the resident with the outcome of this inspection, its timescales for any additional repairs and its plans around renewing the roof.	No later than 26 March 2026
4	Scope of works order The landlord is to analyse the findings of the inspections ordered. It must use this information to update the resident on the works it plans to take to address the leaks and damage, and its anticipated timeframe for the works.	No later than 09 April 2026
5	Lighting order The landlord is to arrange for a temporary source of lighting to be supplied to the resident until the bathroom lighting is able to be re-instated.	No later than 26 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord as they were concerned that leaks into their bathroom would lead to hazardous conditions. In response to this complaint the landlord committed to repairing the building roof, and to assess if the bathroom was safe to use. It agreed to pay the resident £280 in compensation.
4 September 2025	The resident complained to the landlord for a second time. In their complaint the resident said: The condition of the bathroom had worsened, and it was now uninhabitable. They wanted the room to be brought to a standard where they could safely bathe. The tiles, walls and sink were covered with mould, and plaster was falling from the ceiling. On 4 August 2025 contractors had attended the property and said the leaks had been fixed, but the landlord had not made any arrangements to address the damage inside the property. They wanted the landlord to complete an urgent inspection and produce a schedule of repairs.
22 September 2025	The landlord sent its stage one response which said: It apologised for not progressing the internal repairs. It said it had logged the repairs to the bathroom, but when the resident complained the repairs had not been assigned to a contractor. It had now arranged for an electrician to attend the property on 6 October 2025, and for a plasterer to attend on 23 October 2025. The compensation previously offered following the resident’s 22 October 2024 complaint was increased from £280 to £330.
23 September 2025	The resident escalated their complaint as they felt the repairs outlined at stage one were insufficient. They wanted a senior surveyor to address the damage and for the landlord to arrange repairs for any structural damage, the flooring and the tiles.
23 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response which said: A leak from a neighbouring property was resolved on 4 August 2025, and a leak from the roof was resolved on 11 August 2025. Contractors had attended the building to assess if any additional leaks from the roof could be found. No additional leaks were identified. The landlord had arranged repairs for the following works: To trace any additional leaks from the above property. To replaster the walls and ceiling. To install a new light fitting. To redecorate the bathroom. To replace the sink. To regrout the tiles. It acknowledged that the matter had been on going for a significant period, and that using the bathroom would have been uncomfortable. It offered the resident £1,000 in compensation.
27 October 2025	The resident brought their complaint to us as they were unhappy that the landlord had not provided them with a timeframe for the planned works. They were also dissatisfied that the landlord considered the bathroom to be habitable.

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 handling of leaks into the bathroom.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s repairs policy says it adopts a “right first time” approach where it will actively manage repairs and keep residents informed of progress. It says it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It will respond to urgent repairs, where there is a possible health and safety risk, within 3 working days. It will attend emergency repairs, which have the potential to cause immediate danger, within 24 hours. If an emergency cannot be fully resolved at the first visit, the landlord will make the area safe and arrange follow‑on work as an urgent or routine repair.
The landlord’s damp, mould and leaks policy says that when it cannot take immediate action to resolve an issue, it will communicate with the resident and may offer interim solutions to limit the impact until a permanent repair can be arranged.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure that homes are free from hazards serious enough to make them unsuitable to live in. This includes hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Under the HHSRS, bathing facilities that are unsafe, unusable, or not capable of meeting domestic needs can contribute to a finding that a property is not fit for habitation.
On 30 August 2024 the resident reported a leak into their bathroom that was affecting the bathroom light fixture, which was the only source of artificial lighting in the room. The landlord attended the same day and removed the light fixture to address the electrical risk. The resident told us there have been regular leaks since August 2024, and that the associated water ingress has caused significant damage to the bathroom and led to mould growth.
The property has a separate toilet room, and the bathroom contains a sink and bath. The resident told us the bath is currently usable but requires significant cleaning before use, and they are worried about plaster falling due to ceiling damage. They said they bathe elsewhere when possible. The resident and landlord disagree about whether the bathroom is habitable, so we have ordered an surveyor to inspect the room and assess its condition.
As the bathroom lighting was disconnected in response to the leaks, it has remained disconnected for over a year. The landlord should have prioritised reinstating the lighting once conditions were safe or provided temporary lighting until repairs could be completed. The resident said the lack of lighting limits their ability to use the bathroom safely during non‑daylight hours. A temporary portable light would have been a reasonable solution to improve usability. However, there is no evidence to suggest this was considered.
On 18 September 2024 the landlord arranged for a roofing contractor to inspect the roof. The contractor carried out patch repairs and told the landlord the roof required renewal. The contractors said they could not complete the works because the roof was made from specialist rubber material which required specialist contractors. Despite receiving this information, the landlord contacted the contractor 3 times between September 2024 and February 2025 to ask about the inspection outcome. It received the same response each time, and the landlord’s failure to record this information appears to have contributed to delays.
In October 2024 the landlord carried out mould washes and provided a dehumidifier to address the resident’s reports of damage. This was positive; however, it should also have committed to monitoring the bathroom to help prevent further deterioration.
On 21 January 2025 a supervisor visited the property to inspect the bathroom. They felt the leaks might be coming from the upstairs neighbour’s bathroom and noted that inspections of both properties were required. The landlord’s records indicate the inspection did not take place until 4 August 2025. This 6 month delay fell significantly outside the landlord’s repair timescales. When the operative attended the property, they noted that water ingress had “completely ruined” the bathroom. This indicated significant damage requiring an urgent response.
In its complaint responses, the landlord said the leaks were resolved in August 2025. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £1000, and it committed to repairing the damage in the bathroom, and to re-instate the lighting. This was a reasonable offer of compensation and the actions that the landlord set out indicated that the landlord was committed to improving conditions for the resident. The landlord’s position at the end of its complaints process was therefore appropriate as it had set out what it was going to do to put matters right for the resident.
However, after the landlord sent its stage 2 response additional leaks were identified. This has prevented the landlord from progressing the repairs committed to at stage 2.
The resident told us that there are ongoing leaks from the building’s roof and from their upstairs neighbour’s bathroom. They said they had received limited information about the landlord’s plans to address them or when it would be able to repair the damage in the bathroom. While the landlord could not have foreseen new leaks would occur when it responded to the complaint, it had acknowledged failures in its management of the earlier leaks. It should therefore have paid greater attention to managing the new circumstances and reducing the detriment the resident was experiencing. This could be achieved by responding to the new leaks in a timely manner and ensuring the resident was kept updated
We asked the landlord for the latest update relating to the new leaks and any associated planned works. The landlord provided details of an inspection on 10 November 2025, but it did not provide any information about actions taken after the inspection, or outlined what works were planned. This is unreasonable and indicates poor handling of the repairs, and we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 for this failing.
We have found a service failure occurred because the landlord did not appropriately manage the matter once it became clear that the commitments made at stage 2 could not be met without addressing the further leaks as well. It has therefore failed to take reasonable and proactive steps to put matters right for the resident.
The landlord’s records show that other properties in the building are experiencing leaks. This could suggest wider building related issues requiring investigation. To address this, we have ordered the landlord to carry out a full inspection of the building’s roof to identify if there are any additional leaks and to assess the expected lifespan of the roofing material. It is then to complete any follow on repairs and prepare a roof renewal plan if needed. We have also ordered internal inspections to investigate any further causes of water ingress into the resident’s home.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
The landlord’s actions throughout its complaints procedure were completed in line with its policy timescales. This is positive.
We have identified areas where the landlord could improve its complaint handling. However, as it responded to the resident’s complaint in a timely manner, we have not found failures in its complaint handling. We have suggested the landlord reflect on this case to support learning.
In its stage one response, the landlord linked its compensation offer to a previous complaint that had already been closed. Although the issues were related, this was a new complaint, and the landlord should have assessed compensation based on the circumstances at the time rather than relying on the earlier assessment.

Learning

Our review of the complaint has identified areas where the landlord can learn from this case to support future service improvement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not keep clear records of the outcome of the roof inspection or the issues relating to the specialist roofing material. This contributed to avoidable delays and repeated queries to the contractors. Storing and sharing this information appropriately would have helped the landlord progress the repairs more effectively.

Communication

The resident repeatedly raised concerns about the landlord’s communication. Their request for a repair schedule was not addressed during the complaint process. Given the complexity of the repairs and their impact on the resident, the landlord could have placed greater emphasis on timely and clear communication.