London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202535372)

Decision
Case ID	202535372
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	19 March 2026

Background

The resident’s property is located over the first and second floors of a block of flats, with properties above. The resident sublets the property. The resident has intermittently reported a leak from above for several years. The landlord owns and manages the property above. The landlord completed some works but the leak kept reoccurring. The resident complained because the landlord had not completed a lasting repair to stop the leak. The leak damaged his property and affected his tenants.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Report of a leak from above.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the report of a leak from above.
There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found the landlord:

Report of a leak from above

Unreasonably delayed in investigating the cause of the leak. Failed to complete a lasting repair to stop the leak. Failed to proactively keep the resident updated. Failed to evidence or explore options to mitigate the impact of the damp. Failed to inspect the electrics to ensure they were safe.

Complaint handling

Made an offer of compensation which was proportionate to the failings identified and in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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 provided by a manager. 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 16 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak from above. 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 16 April 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property and surrounding properties. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent 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 resident’s property and surrounding properties and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the leak from above Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) 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 16 April 2026
5	Action plan Following the inspection the landlord must provide the resident with a written action plan which must include: A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the leak (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work with details of any approvals or consultations and an estimate of when these will either start or be in place by A plan for communicating updates about the repairs with an agreed frequency for updates The landlord must provide the resident and us with a copy of this by the due date.	No later than 30 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling on the basis it pays the resident the £100 compensation it offered within its complaint process.
The landlord should consider additional compensation when it has resolved the leak. If the resident feels the compensation offered after completion is insufficient, they can raise a new complaint with the landlord.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 August 2025	The resident complained about a persistent leak from above. The leak was coming into his flat via a bedroom ceiling. His most recent report was in June 2025. He complained that he had not received any update from the landlord. The leak was ongoing and causing damage to his property.
14 August 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
28 August 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had not been able to access the flat above in June 2025. It had attended on 1 August 2025 and completed a repair. It advised the resident to make an insurance claim for the damage to his property.
1 September 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the repair had not resolved the leak. The leak had affected the electrics and there was no lights in the upstairs rooms, leaving them unusable. He could not proceed with any redecoration works in his property until the leak stopped.
1 September 2025	The landlord acknowledge the resident’s escalation request.
29 September 2025	The landlord requested an extension for it to send its stage 2 response.
3 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It accepted there had been delays in it completing the repairs to rectify the leak, due to not being able to access the flat above. It said it had completed further works on 1 October 2025 to stop the leak. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £250 compensation.
8 October 2025	The landlord issued a revised stage 2 response due to the resident reporting the repair had not stopped the leak. It confirmed it had checked the repair and found it to be sound. It said it would complete further investigations and increased the compensation to £680.
Events after stage 2	The landlord continued to investigate the leak after stage 2. It inspected the exterior of the building on 19 February 2025 and completed a dye test. As of 13 March 2026 no dye had made its way to the resident’s property and the leak was ongoing.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. As an outcome he wanted the landlord to complete a lasting repair to stop the leak. He also wanted the landlord to increase the compensation.

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 resident’s report of a leak from above
Finding	Maladministration

The resident had reported a leak from the property above over several years. In March 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the leak. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 27 March 2024. We have not seen any evidence the resident escalated this complaint to stage 2 or that the landlord prevented him from doing so. We will therefore consider the landlord’s actions from October 2024, which is when the resident next reported the leak.
Under the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building, and the resident is responsible for repairs to the interior of the property. The landlord is responsible for completing all repairs to the property above because it owns and manages it.
In October 2024 the resident reported the leak had returned. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended the same day. This was inline with its repair policy which says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord raised follow‑on works to check the flat above for the source of the leak. It attended on 25 November 2024. This was 13 working days outside its 20‑working‑day timescale for routine repairs. During the visit the landlord checked under some kitchen units, found them dry, but could not check the waste pipe because it was buried in the floor and behind a unit. The landlord closed the repair without carrying out further investigation. This was a failing.
On 13 December 2024 the landlord raised a routine repair to investigate a leak from external cladding. It closed the repair on 18 December 2024. Due to poor record keeping, we cannot confirm if the contractor attended on this date, what actions they took, or what they found.
The resident reported that the leak was ongoing on 2 June 2025. The landlord’s contractor attended on 10 June 2025, within the 20‑working‑day timescale. The contractor suspected the waste pipe needed replacing. The notes indicate the contractor spoke to the tenant living above. The tenant told the contractor the landlord would need to move them to temporary accommodation while completing the works. The contractor delayed in referring this back to the landlord, which it did on 17 June 2025. It then closed the repair on 28 July 2025 because the landlord did not respond to its enquiry. The failure to respond showed poor oversight of contractors and repairs. This was a failing.
On 1 August 2025 the resident reported the leak again. The landlord’s contractor attended on 5 August 2025 and replaced the white sealant behind the kitchen sink in the flat above. Although this work met the repair timescales, it did not fix the leak.
On 13 August 2025 the resident raised a complaint. He explained that the landlord had not updated him after the 5 August 2025 visit and that the leak continued. He said this was the sixth major leak in recent years. He also said the leak affected the property’s electrics and left a bedroom without lighting, and it had caused damp and mould.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy does not cover leaseholders. However, the damp and mould in the resident’s property was likely caused by the leak in this case. Therefore the landlord should have inspected the property and assessed if there was anything it could do to mitigate the impact of the damp whilst it rectified the leak. An example of this would be to complete a mould wash. This did not happen.
The landlord also failed to check if the electrics in the resident’s property were safe. This was not inline with its repair policy which says it will take reasonable steps to prevent accidents and ensure its property does not cause a danger to neighbours.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said access issues in the flat above had caused delays but it had now completed all repairs. When the resident escalated the complaint in September 2025, he explained the leak was ongoing. He said the lighting in both bedrooms, the toilet, and the bathroom no longer worked, leaving those rooms unusable. He expressed concern about ongoing damage to his property and the impact on his tenants.
The landlord then arranged to visit both properties on 26 September 2025. The resident’s tenant told the landlord the leak occurred only when it rained. The landlord noted the leak might be coming from outside but it also needed to complete a dye test on the buried waste pipe in the flat above to eliminate this as a possible source. The landlord told its contractor to prioritise this. The contractor attended on 1 October 2025 and replaced the waste pipe from the sink to the stack pipe. Although this met the 20‑working‑day timescale, the landlord should have investigated this issue when it was first raised in October 2024. This missed opportunity caused avoidable delay. The landlord asked the contractor to schedule a post‑works inspection in 2 weeks to confirm whether the leak had stopped.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 October 2025. On 6 October 2025 the resident told the landlord the leak had worsened since the repair. The landlord instructed its contractor to attend urgently. The contractor attended on 7 October 2025 and confirmed that the waste‑pipe repair was in good order. However, after visiting the resident’s property, the contractor saw water dripping from the bedroom light fitting. The contractor advised the landlord to check other pipework in the flat above, including the central‑heating system. The landlord passed this to its heating contractor.
The landlord has completed further investigations after stage 2 but the leak is ongoing.
We recognise that complex leaks can take time to diagnose and repair, but the landlord must respond promptly, keep accurate records, and keep the resident updated. In this case the resident repeatedly had to chase for information. This caused unnecessary time, trouble, and frustration, and represents a failure.
When we identify failures, we then consider whether the landlord offered redress that fairly resolved the complaint. We assess this against our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord apologised, completed some repairs, and offered £150 compensation for delays between June 2025 and October 2025. After the resident reported on 8 October 2025 that the leak continued, the landlord increased its offer to £580, which included £80 for loss of lighting. It is positive that the landlord reviewed its offer, but it made this increased offer outside the complaint process. The stage 2 compensation did not fairly reflect the impact on the resident.
The landlord had known about the leak since at least October 2024. Although it completed some works, the leak continued to affect the property up to the date of this determination. The upper‑floor lighting had not worked since at least September 2025. While the resident did not live in the property, he was worried about ongoing damage and frustrated that the landlord failed to resolve the leak. He could not progress an insurance claim, he had submitted in 2024, for redecorating because the leak remained unresolved. His tenants also withheld rent due to the lack of lighting, which affected him financially.
The failures outlined above amount to maladministration. Based on our Remedies Guidance, £1,000 is an appropriate level of compensation to reflect the distress, inconvenience, and ongoing impact, including the fact that the leak remained unresolved. For clarity, this covers the period from October 2024 up to the date of this determination.
We have ordered the landlord to inspect the resident’s property and neighbouring properties to identify the source of the leak and the work required to achieve a lasting solution. The landlord must instruct an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection. This is because the landlord has repeatedly failed to identify the cause of the leak over several years. An independent assessment will provide the clarity and finality that has been lacking.
We have also recommended the landlord consider additional compensation when it has resolved the leak. If the resident feels the compensation offered after completion is insufficient, they can raise a new complaint with the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales.
2. At stage 1 the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days and send its response 10 working days thereafter. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 1 working day. It sent its response 1 working day late. This was a minor failing not in line with the Code.
3. At stage 2 the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s escalation within in 5 working days and send its response 20 working days thereafter. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint which was not in line with the Code.
4. The landlord requested an extension for it to provide its stage 2 response. It telephoned the resident to discuss this. Whilst discussing the issues with the resident over the telephone is positive complaint handling, the landlord should have followed this request up in writing. It should have clearly set out its reasons for requesting the extension and provided the contact details for this Service. This did not happen therefore it was not compliant with the Code.
5. The landlord sent is stage 2 complaint response within 5 working days of the extension. This was in line with the Code.
6. Both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses appropriately defined and responded to the issues raised by the resident. The content of the responses was adequate to meet the requirements of the Code. The responses were expressed in clear, plain language.
In its complaint responses the landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation for its failure to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. Although the landlord did not recognise all the failures outlined above, our Remedies Guidance suggest that an award of £100 may remedy the failures identified which had no permanent impact on the resident. Therefore, the apology made, and the compensation awarded leads to a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord closed repairs before completion in October 2024 and June 2025. This showed a lack of oversight of its repairs and contractors. It should consider reviewing its processes to ensure it is effectively monitoring repairs through to completion.
The landlord failed to take adequate action to identify and resolve the source of the leak.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was good, save for the issues we have highlighted in this report.

Communication

The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates in relation to the repairs and his complaint. Whilst the landlord responded to some contacts, its communication and updates could have been better. The landlord should ensure it identifies complex cases, such as this, at an early stage and has a strategy in place for keeping residents informed.