London Borough of Lewisham (202513950)

Decision
Case ID	202513950
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lewisham
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 December 2025

Background

The resident moved into the landlord’s property with her children in November 2023. From the start of the tenancy, she reported issues with the roofing, guttering, windows, and doors. The landlord advised that its voids team would address these concerns. The resident said she had left her previous property because of serious disrepair, and the condition of this property caused her anxiety. Between November 2023 and February 2024, she raised further concerns and then submitted a formal complaint to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repair reports.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in its response to repair reports.
2. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s repair reports for a prolonged period. It initially stated that the resident had not reported any repairs. When she disputed this, it again failed to respond for a significant time, despite the resident reporting the impact on her household. Some repairs remain outstanding.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to meet either of its complaint response timeframes, significantly delaying resolution of the issues.

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 (deducting any payments already made) pay the resident £1200, comprised as follows: £1000 for its poor handling of the repairs. £200 to recognise the impact of its significant delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord must evidence this payment has been made directly to the resident by the due date.	No later than 26 January 2026
2	Specific action order The landlord must contact the resident and formulate an action plan to confirm and complete the remaining outstanding works. It must produce a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution, setting out the likely timescales to commence and complete the work. It should consider whether temporary alternative accommodation should be offered to the resident either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 23 February 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must respond to the resident’s safety concerns about the issues with the property garden. If it continues to consider it is not responsible, it should be clear about why it is not. In any event, it should visit the garden to assess and ensure the area is safe for the resident and her children.	No later than 16 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 January 2024	The resident sent an email to the landlord that we are treating as her initial complaint. She listed the issues at the property that were outstanding. These included: The windows and doors – she explained how cold the property had been and said the window in her daughter’s room was “broken”. The roof – she said rainwater was coming through a hole. Guttering and drains – she said these were damaged. The gate – she said the family received splinters when opening it. The stone around the front door – she expressed safety concerns. The radiators – she said they did not heat the property properly. The garden – she reported safety concerns, saying her daughter had fallen on uneven paving. She said she had been “ignored by the voids team” since moving in although the landlord had promised to complete repairs.
8 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
22 April 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it had no records to indicate repair requests had been logged since void works were completed on the property. The resident responded the same day, providing emails showing she had raised repairs.
14 June 2024	The resident called the landlord, complaining about the windows in her property and that there was a damp issue.
13 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord again, saying that “nothing has been done” about the issues she had repeatedly reported.
18 March 2025	The resident complained again. She said on 6 March 2024 an operative said he had visited the property previously about the windows and was surprised he had been sent again for the same issue. She said she had learnt that quotes had been raised for roofing and guttering but not approved. She repeated the concerns she had raised in her stage 1 complaint and said that she also had 5 6ft poles sticking out of the ground in the garden. She said she was “begging” the landlord to investigate the issues, which were making her depressed and unwell.
15 April 2025	The landlord said it would be extending the time it required to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process.
1 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised and accepted: That despite the resident having raised concerns at the start of her tenancy, the repairs to the windows, doors, roof, gutters, radiators, water tank and the front door arch, remained unresolved. That despite escalating her complaint, the landlord had not acted to repair, despite her providing evidence of her reports on 22 April 2024. It had failed to refer repairs to its repairs team and had not communicated with her. It had arranged a survey on 7 May 2025 to deal with the windows and doors, would update her on the roof and gutters on 14 May 2025 and would follow up a visit about the front door arch on 28 May 2025. It said it had referred the radiators and water tank work to its compliance team and did not consider it had responsibility to address the garden works. It offered compensation for the delays, inconvenience and distress of £200 and £50 for her time and effort.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident took her complaint to us as she said the landlord had not completed window repairs which she said had caused damp and mould, repairs to the doors, the guttering, roof, and water tank.

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	Repair reports
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

We are 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 health 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. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will not be considered in this report.

What we have investigated

When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, scheduled dates for outstanding repairs and compensation), was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We have assessed whether the landlord acted in line with those principles against the individual core repair issues below.
Before the tenancy began, the landlord knew from a September 2023 inspection that the property needed new windows. These were expected to be replaced when the resident moved in. On 31 October 2023, the resident expressed concern about the cold weather and asked for the windows and doors to be completed before Christmas. On 6 November 2023, she reported that 2 windows were open and hanging off their hinges. On 20 November 2023, she said the landlord had still not provided an update.
In January 2024, the resident complained that no work had been carried out and said the house was extremely cold. She reported that she had placed cling film around the window frames to reduce draughts and that the window in her child’s bedroom fell off completely when opened. She asked for an update again in February 2024. The landlord apologised and said it would pass her reports to the repairs team. This did not happen and in June 2024 the resident called the landlord concerned about damp. In its stage 2 response, the landlord expressed regret for its failure to pass her concerns to its repairs team
When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in April 2024, it stated that she had not logged any repair concerns. In its stage 2 May 2025 response, the landlord accepted that she had raised concerns with its tenancy, lettings, and voids team and that she had provided evidence of this on the same day as its stage 1 response. The landlord apologised for failing to respond to the evidence but did not acknowledge that, by May 2025, the resident had been waiting for over a year for a resolution.
The landlord stated that an operative inspected the windows and doors on 19 June 2024 and reported that they needed attention, but nothing further had been arranged. It reported that another inspection took place on 15 January 2025. The inspector noted that the resident had a young family and that none of the windows opened because they were all not working. He also recorded that the wood was rotten, including the front and back doors. The landlord observed from the operative’s photographs that the property was not in a good condition. Despite this, it did not treat the repairs as urgent.
In its stage 2 response in May 2025, the landlord said it would contact the resident to arrange a joint survey on 7 May 2025. We asked the landlord for an update. At the time of writing, the windows have still not been replaced. Records indicate that this is because the landlord refused a quote for the works in October 2025 and is still negotiating with contractors.
A void inspection in October 2023 identified that the windows needed replacing, and an inspection in January 2025 confirmed they were in poor condition. It is not consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy or its lettable standards that the resident and her family have had to live through 2 winters (with a third winter approaching) without functioning windows and doors.
The resident reported issues with the roof and with the guttering in October 2023. The landlord said it would refer the repairs to its voids team. In November 2023, the resident repeated that the guttering was in very poor condition and sent photographs to support her concerns. The landlord’s records show that a job was raised on 14 June 2024 to clear a blocked drain in the garden. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that due to a system error, the job was not referred to a contractor. While errors of this nature can occur, the delay was significant. An operative also attended in January 2025 and found that all the gutters were leaking and needed renewal.
Although a system error may explain the initial failure to respond, the landlord was made aware again of the problem and its impact on the resident and her family from at least January 2025. It is unclear when the job was completed. Some records state that the drains were unblocked on 9 May 2025, while others indicate the repair was not completed until 3 October 2025. Both dates fall well outside the landlord’s repairs timeframe.
The landlord stated that during its visit in January 2025, operatives noted that the gutters and roof required substantial repairs. It said it would update the resident by 14 May 2025.
There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident about the roof. This was a repair she first raised in October 2023 and complained about again in January 2024, when she reported a hole in the roof that allowed rain to enter.
The landlord stated that it has still not repaired the roof because there is a possibility it needs renewing. However, the survey in January 2025 had already identified that the roof required renewal. The landlord has not sufficiently explained why a repair first raised in October 2023 remains outstanding more than 2 years later. This is particularly concerning given the resident’s report of rainwater entering the property and the landlord’s commitment to provide an update in May 2025.
The resident reported issues with the front door arch in October 2023, saying she was concerned it was crumbling and could fall on her child. The landlord’s records show that it raised a repair for this on 18 March 2025. This delay is well beyond any reasonable timeframe for a repair and is serious, given the resident’s report that it could be dangerous.
From the start of her tenancy, the resident reported holes and unlevelled paving in the garden and gate. In March 2025 she reported poles sticking out of the ground. She raised concerns about safety hazards for her children, stating they had fallen in the garden and received splinters from the gate.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its repairs policy says it is not responsible for repairs to private gardens. The policy we have been given does not say that although it does point to the tenancy agreement which sets out that the resident is responsible for maintaining the garden. However, the repairs policy says that health and safety is a top priority and that this is embedded in the way it delivers its repairs service. Therefore, when the resident reported issues she believed were safety concerns at the start of her tenancy, the landlord should have inspected to assess whether there was a safety risk it was responsible for. This is particularly relevant as its lettable standards require paths, paving and gates to be in a reasonable state of repair and safe.
The resident reported and complained about the radiators and water tank from the start of her tenancy. There is some evidence that the landlord’s void team attended to heating issues at the start of the tenancy but it is not clear if these were resolved. At stage 2, the landlord said it had referred the matters to its compliance team and advised the resident to follow up if she did not hear from them within a week. It is unclear whether these issues have been resolved.
The landlord says it considers compensation in line with our guidance on remedies. It offered the resident £200 to acknowledge its delays and the distress and inconvenience caused. It also offered £50 for the resident’s time and trouble. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the failings in this case with an offer of compensation. However, when compared against our guidance on remedies and the scale and nature of the number of failings, the sum did proportionately recognise the impact on the resident of the identified failings.
Overall, the landlord did not respond to serious issues at the property for a prolonged period. This was significant given the resident’s repeated reports about the impact on her and her family. After months without a response, a housing officer acknowledged in February 2024 that waiting months without contact was not acceptable. Despite this, the issues remained unresolved and the landlord continued to fail to communicate. These failures were compounded by its lack of updates and incomplete repairs after the stage 2 response. The remedies offered were not reasonable in terms of remedying the complaint.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process which is compliant with our complaint handling code, (the Code). It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
It is difficult to determine when the resident first made a formal complaint because she expressed dissatisfaction repeatedly from the start of her tenancy. The landlord also did not specify which complaint it was responding to in its stage 1 reply. Nonetheless, 9 January 2024 is when she set out in detail the landlord’s failure to address outstanding repairs. The landlord’s stage 1 response was therefore 63 working days late.
The landlord stated that the resident escalated her complaint in or around April 2025, when it wrote to her to say it would extend its response time by up to 10 working days. However, the resident escalated her complaint on the same day she received the stage 1 response on 22 April 2024. On that day, she said she was disappointed with the response and provided evidence showing that the landlord’s assertion that she had not reported repairs was incorrect. This means the landlord’s stage 2 response, sent on 1 May 2025 was 242 working days late.
Both delays were significant. Given the resident’s repeated explanation that the issues at the property worsened her anxiety, particularly as she had previously lived in another home in disrepair, the landlord should have done its utmost to respond promptly. It failed to do so and, despite the significant delays in complaint handling and its stage 1 response failure to acknowledge her repair reports, it failed to consider offering compensation or to apologise for the lengthy delay in responding to her complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The failings in this case indicate the landlord had a poor records system. For example, after visits were conducted, it failed to follow up on findings made. There did not appear to be a system to encourage tracking of actions taken. The landlord should consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for accurate record keeping.

Communication

The landlord should consider reviewing the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaint handling. The report explains that delays, poor communication, and lack of ownership can escalate issues unnecessarily. It recommends clear accountability, timely responses, and proactive engagement to resolve problems early and maintain trust.