London Borough of Lewisham (202503165)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202503165

London Borough of Lewisham

24 October 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Repair requests
    2. Reports of a pest infestation
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 3 November 2021. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. On 29 July 2024, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response in relation to a complaint about hallway flooring. It acknowledged that resident had reported the hallway flooring issue in July 2022, and April 2023. It apologised, offered £75 compensation, and said it would arrange to complete the works.
  3. On 10 February 2025, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said that the landlord had ripped up her floor because of a neighbours leak. She said that the landlord left the flooring with large gaps. As a result, mice were entering the property and had damaged her kitchen door. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to assess and resolve the issue.
  4. On 3 March 2025, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it:
    1.  the resident refused the flooring repair 3 times.
    2. remained committed to completing the repair and would provide available dates for a visit.
    3. had not received a repair request for her kitchen door but it had now arranged an inspection.
    4. had attempted to contact her on 3 March 2025 to discuss. It said that she would be responsible for pest treatment.
  5. On 5 March 2025, the resident escalated her complaint. She said that she had been living with the ripped-up flooring since 2022. She disputed that she had refused the repair 3 times. She said that pest control had recommended that the landlord block the holes in the flooring. She said she still awaited the kitchen door repair.
  6. On 31 March 2025, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delay in resolving her flooring issues. It confirmed that it had completed the repair on 14 March 2025. It said that it has scheduled an appointment to repair the kitchen door. It said that as part of its flooring repairs it had blocked up holes allowing entry for mice. It said that if the resident found additional holes it would carry out further proofing works.
  7. On 24 April 2025, the resident brought her complaint to us. She remained unhappy because the flooring was still uneven. She said that the plyboard that the landlord put over the floor is uneven. She said that she had not been able to put floor coverings down since 2021 when she moved in.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised us that she first made a complaint about the uneven hallway flooring on 20 December 2021, shortly after her tenancy began. The evidence indicates that the resident had previously raised complaints with the landlord’s handling of her flooring. A previous stage 2 complaint response was issued on 24 July 2024 about uneven flooring and as a resolution to that complaint it said it would repair her flooring.
  2. For completeness, this investigation has considered all evidence from 24 July 2024. This is because as a resolution to the previous complaint, the landlord said it would repair the flooring. The previous stage 2 complaint response was also within 12 months of the resident bringing her complaint to us.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests

Flooring

  1. On 24 July 2024, the landlord said that it would contact the resident by 5 August 2024 to agree a date for the flooring works to start. There is no evidence that the contractor was instructed or that this contact occurred. This was inappropriate.
  2. On 18 September 2024, the resident told the landlord that she awaited the flooring repair. An email to the contractor on 8 October 2024 shows that the job should be completed as soon as possible. However, this was not complete until 14 March 2025 after the resident raised a further complaint. This was 171 working days after it said it would complete the repair. This was an unreasonable delay and significantly beyond its timescales of 20 working days for a standard repair.
  3. When the resident brought her complaint to us, she said that the landlord’s repair left the sub floor uneven and she can not lay a new floor. An order has been made for the landlord to survey the floor and carry out any further works required so that resident can lay her floor coverings.

Kitchen door

  1. The evidence shows that the resident reported that the kitchen door had been damaged by mice on 10 February 2025. The landlord surveyed the door on 17 March 2025 when repairing the floor and raised a work order to complete the repair on 4 April 2025. The landlord agreed this appointment date as part of its complaint response. While this repair was beyond its timescales, the landlord did survey the door and communicate its follow-on repair with the resident.
  2. We find that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests. This is because it delayed significantly beyond its repair timescales in repairing the resident’s flooring. This meant that the resident could not lay her own flooring in her hallway. The failings caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident in chasing up the repair. An order of £300 compensation has been made below in line with our Remedies Guidance.

The landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation

  1. On 13 November 2024, the resident reported that she had rodents and provided images of gaps in the flooring and around radiator pipes. On 20 November 2024, a pest control treatment report from the council found that the mice were entering the property through hole and gaps around pipes. This repair was not completed until 4 months later on 14 March 2025.
  2. After the initial report of rodents, there is no evidence of communication from the landlord to the resident until she raised a complaint on 10 February 2025. When she raised a complaint, she said that she had reported the issue several times. This indicates that the landlord only responded to the report of rodents entering her property because she raised a complaint. This was inappropriate.
  3. We find that there was maladministration with the landlords response to the resident‘s reports of a pest infestation. This is because it delayed in carrying out the works to prevent the mice entering the property. The evidence shows a lack of communication from the landlord about the issue. This failure caused distress to the resident who had mice entering her property for 4 months. An order of compensation of £200 has been made below in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Complaint handling  

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right.
  2. While the landlord apologised for the delay in repairing the flooring, it failed to acknowledge that the repair had been part of a previous complaint and that it delayed the repair by approximately 7 months. As such, it failed to offer any redress for this service failing.
  3. In its complaint responses the landlord failed to acknowledge that the rodent issue was because of its failure to repair the flooring. As such, it failed to apologise or provide redress for its delay in carrying out the proofing works.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that the landlord refused the flooring repair 3 times. In her complaint escalation the resident disputed that she refused the repair but still the landlord said in its stage 2 response that she refused works previously. There was no evidence provided to us that supports the landlord’s position that repairs were refused and in its complaint responses the landlord does not refer to any evidence supporting its position.
  5. The evidence shows that the resident went to considerable time and trouble, including bringing the same issue through its complaints process twice. It was unreasonable for the landlord to place blame on the resident without providing or referring to any evidence to substantiate its position. This caused further distress to the resident.
  6. We find that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to use its complaints process effectively to identify and acknowledge service failings and it failed to put things right for the resident. Its complaint responses were defensive in tone and unfairly placed blame on the resident which cannot but have had a negative impact on the landlord/tenant relationship. Furthermore, if the landlord does not accept its failings, it cannot implement learning to reduce the likelihood of the same failing reoccurring. An order of £100 for the complaint handling failures has been made to reflect the distress caused to the resident.
  7. This finding is in line with complaint handling failures identified in a special report on the landlord by the Housing Ombudsman Service, published in October 2025. In which, we made recommendations in relation to improving complaint handling, including staff training. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make additional orders as they overlap the expectations of the special report. A link to the report can be found below.

 Lewisham Council Special Investigation Report

Determination

  1. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
  2. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
  3. There was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, of £600, compromising:
    1. £300 for the failures identified in its response to repair requests.
    2. £200 for the failures identified in its response to mice proofing.
    3. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
  3. It is ordered for the landlord to contact the resident in the first instance to confirm if the subfloor requires repair. If so, it should survey the floor within 4 weeks and carry out any further works within its repair timescales. It should set a communication plan with the resident to ensure she is provided with regular updates.