London Borough of Sutton (202533066)

Decision
Case ID	202533066
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Sutton
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	29 May 2026

Background

1. In February 2025 the resident reported a leak into her kitchen from the walkway.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Leak into the kitchen and associated repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak into the kitchen and associated repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The leak into the kitchen and associated repairs

4. The landlord acknowledged failings in how it addressed the leak. However, it did not offer redress proportionate to the failings we have identified. There is no evidence it monitored the effectiveness of the repairs, and it did not complete this work within the timescale agreed in the final response. It delayed providing support and advice to the resident around her electrical safety and damp and mould concerns while the leak was ongoing.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord identified some failings in its complaint handling but did not acknowledge or apologise for its delayed stage 1 complaint response. It did not communicate with the resident about this delay.

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 26 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £675 made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak into the kitchen and associated repairs. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 26 June 2026
3	The landlord must contact the resident to confirm completion of repairs to address the leak and how it will monitor the success of work.	No later than 26 June 2026
4	The landlord must contact the resident to offer support with her insurance claim.	No later than 26 June 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 June 2025	The resident contacted the landlord expressing her frustration and dissatisfaction with its handling of the leak into her kitchen.
4 September 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the repair to the leak. She said the leak was affecting electrics in the kitchen and black mould was coming through.
31 October 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged an unacceptable delay in resolving the source of the leak. It awarded her compensation of £275. This included £25 for the delay raising the complaint. It advised the resident that she should submit a claim through the building insurance for damage to her flat.
Unclear	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the leak was still not resolved.
16 December 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said the resident had provided evidence showing an ongoing leak, and damp and mould in her kitchen. It set out more extensive repairs it would complete. It said it expected this work to be completed in February 2026. It increased its award to £525. This included £25 for the delayed stage 2 complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the matter to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She wanted increased compensation and reassurance about the repair work completed.

 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 the leak into the kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. The resident said in her complaint to the landlord that she wanted it to buy back her flat. During the complaints process, the landlord told her it had added her to the list of properties it may purchase. We cannot order that the landlord buy back the resident’s flat as part of the resolution of this complaint. This would be a matter for the landlord’s homeownership team to consider in line with its policies and procedures. Our investigation has focused on its handling of the leak to the kitchen and associated repairs.

What we have investigated

7. The landlord accepted delays in resolving the leak the resident reported. In line with the lease, it had an obligation to address repair issues to the structure and outside of the property. After the resident reported a leak from the walkway on 14 February 2025, it raised work the same day with a 1-working-day target. But records do not show that it met its 24-hour “make safe” obligation for urgent issues like leaks. It did not detail any information about its attendances or work completed.
8. In her email of 25 February 2025, the resident confirmed the landlord had attended and had believed the leak was from a bathroom above. She said this had been fixed, but that the leak into her kitchen continued. In response, the landlord raised a further inspection and work. But it did not do so until 5 March 2025. That was 6 working days after the resident told it the issue had continued. This would have delayed necessary repairs and resolution of the leak.
9. The further work the landlord raised had a target date of 15 July 2025. This 90-working day target was in line its timeframe for planned repairs. But it did not record any inspections it had made to assess the work or consideration of any temporary repairs. There is no evidence it considered any support it could provide the resident around her concern about electrical safety. There is also no evidence it communicated any timeframe for work to her. Had it done so, it would have gone some way towards reassuring her about its plans for repairs.
10. On 6 June 2025, the resident reported the leak had returned following work she said the landlord completed on 24 May 2025. The landlord raised a dye test the same day. But it did not act to address the additional concerns the resident raised about mould growth, or her concerns about the electrics.
11. The landlord’s records do not show when it completed the dye test. But when the resident contacted it on 9 July 2025, she said this had been completed 2 weeks before. The landlord only raised further work on 10 July 2025, after the resident chased. It should have maintained oversight so it could raise work without delay. Its records do not detail the further work it completed in July 2025. But the resident subsequently said this started on 18 July 2025 and did not resolve the leak. The landlord raised more work in August and September 2025. But, again, its records do not show attendance or outcomes.
12. In its 31 October 2025 complaint response, the landlord said the leak was resolved on 17 September 2025 and that it had checked electrics were safe at this time. The resident later confirmed this work. But the landlord had delayed addressing or responding to her concerns about the electrical safety since she raised this on 25 February 2025.
13. The resident told the landlord in her escalation request that the leak issue persisted after it completed work on 17 September 2025. Given repeated failed repairs, the landlord should have monitored the success of this work. Doing so would have allowed it to consider appropriate escalating action, such as a more detailed survey or more extensive work, to ensure a full and lasting repair.
14. During contact with the landlord, the resident repeatedly raised concerns about damp and mould in her kitchen arising from the ongoing leak. The landlord’s leaseholder handbook states that it will inspect cases of damp where this is not attributable to condensation. The leaseholder’s handbook sets out that building insurance covered the resident for damage to the structure of her flat. But the landlord delayed until its stage 1 response of 31 October 2025 before directing the resident about how to make a claim under this. Further, the resident told the landlord in her escalation request of the ongoing leak and damp and mould. The landlord had previously set out that it had checked electrical safety during repairs on 17 September 2025. It should reasonably have considered what advice and support it could provide the resident in addressing her concerns about damp and mould while the leak was ongoing. It had previously directed her to submit an insurance claim for mould remediation through building insurance. But she could not progress this while the leak remained unresolved.
15. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it was “unacceptable” that the resident had been left living with an active leak and mould growth. It acknowledged that the water penetration had a negative impact on her quiet enjoyment of her home. Her enjoyment/use of her property should not be unreasonably interrupted by its actions or inaction. Its prolonged failure to resolve the leak, together with the presence of damp and mould, disrupted the resident’s ability to comfortably use her kitchen. The landlord had not ensured repairs to the walkway were completed in a timely and effective manner. In these circumstances, it should have taken a more proactive approach to addressing the resident’s concern about damp and mould she was experiencing while the leak was ongoing.
16. In its stage 2 response of 16 December 2025, the landlord accepted the leak was ongoing. It outlined plans for more extensive repairs to the walkway agreed by its assets and responsive repairs teams. It said works would be completed by February 2026, weather permitting. The landlord’s records do not show when this work was completed. But the resident said a repair was carried out at the end of April 2026 which appeared to resolve the leak. However, she said the landlord had not contacted her to check or confirm this. She said that she wanted confirmation before continuing with her insurance claim. Given the repeated repair failures, the landlord should have checked that works had been effective. It should have set out how it would monitor this in its stage 2 complaint response. This would have given the resident some additional confidence.
17. The landlord took more than 14 months to complete a lasting repair to resolve a leak into the resident’s kitchen. This was far in excess of its 90-working-day target for planned repairs. During this time, the landlord did not promptly address the resident’s concerns about internal damage. It delayed responding to her concern about electrical safety and did not act to consider appropriate support or advice it could provide in relation to her damp and mould concerns while the leak was ongoing. In addition, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had taken learning from the complaint. It did not clearly set out how it would ensure that the repair agreed within its final response would be effective, particularly in light of the multiple unsuccessful repair attempts previously undertaken. Overall, its handling of the leak to the kitchen and associated repairs amounted to maladministration.
18. We have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to confirm completion of works to address the leak and how it will monitor the success of repairs. We have ordered that it contact her to offer support with her insurance claim.
19. The landlord awarded £475 for the impact of its failings in response to her leak report. This was in line the range set out in its compensation policy for failings which have had a high impact. The landlord acknowledged it failed to provide a lasting resolution within a reasonable timeframe. Although it delayed doing so, it also correctly directed the resident about how to make a claim under the building insurance. However, while it acknowledged damp and mould issues in its stage 2 response, it did not consider any support or advice it could provide to her while the leak was ongoing. There is also no clear evidence it completed the repair within the timeframe set out in its stage 2 response, or that it maintained communication with the resident when it did not do so. It did not show that it took appropriate action to check with the resident to ensure the repair had been effective.
20. The resident described the distress and inconvenience she experienced living with an active leak, and her concerns about mould and safety. She said she had to place containers in her kitchen to catch water. She told us this particularly affected her elderly mother, who lives with her. The resident also said she experienced embarrassment and disruption to her normal use of the home, including feeling uncomfortable inviting guests. Overall, given the additional failings we have identified, and what the resident has said, we do not consider level of award made by the landlord to fully reflect the impact of all its failings.
21. We have considered all the circumstances and the failings we have identified. We have ordered that the landlord pay increased compensation of £600. This amount is consistent with the range set out in our compensation guidance where maladministration has had a significant impact and its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

22. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in September 2025, the relevant Code was the April 2024 edition. We have found that the landlord’s published complaints policy at this time complied with the Code in respect of timescales and the definition of a complaint.
23. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 June 2025 expressing her dissatisfaction with its handling of the repair. The landlord raised further work that day. But it should also have raised a complaint. It acknowledged and apologised for this failing in its stage 1 complaint response of 31 October 2025. It awarded £25 in recognition of this and that was appropriate. It missed an early opportunity to address and resolve issues through its complaints process. It was appropriate that it identified learning it could take from this.
24. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 September 2025. It logged a complaint at this time. But its eventual stage 1 response was 25 working days outside its target response timeframe. The resident said she chased it 3 times. The landlord did not contact her in advance to agree an extension or confirm an expected timescale for its response. Nor did it acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its eventual response. The delayed response and lack of communication would have added to the resident’s concern.
25. The resident escalated her complaint after receiving the stage 1 complaint response of 31 October 2025. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 10 November 2025. But it did not clearly record when it had received the escalation requestion. It should have done so to demonstrate whether it was acted in line with its target timeframes when acknowledging and responding to this. It appropriately contacted the resident on 10 December 2025 to explain that its stage 2 complaint response was delayed. When it provided its stage 2 complaint response on 16 December 2025, it acknowledged and apologised for the delayed response. The £25 it awarded in respect of this was appropriate.
26. Overall, we have identified service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It apologised and awarded £50 compensation for its complaint handling failings. But it did not identify or remedy all failings. We have ordered increased compensation of £75. This amount is in line with the range set out in our compensation guidance and appropriately recognises the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Learning

27. The landlord should maintain oversight of work so that it can progress appropriate repairs. Particularly when it is notified a repair has not been successful, it should complete timely assessments to ensure necessary work is completed for a lasting repair.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s repair records did not detail sufficient information to show how and when it attended to complete repairs. Appropriate record keeping would allow to demonstrate how it acted to respond to repair reports in line with its obligations and target response timescales. The landlord should consider if it has adequate process and guidance to staff to ensure appropriate record keeping.
29. The landlord should record the date it receives complaints and escalation requests. By doing so, it can demonstrate whether it responded within target timescales.

Communication

30. The landlord did not maintain effective communication with the resident about repair timescales and work completed. It also did not communicate with her when its complaint response was delayed.