Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London Borough of Wandsworth (202429783)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429783

London Borough of Wandsworth

29 July 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:
    1. The condition of the property upon letting.
    2. The landlord’s handling of a ceiling collapse and associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a 4-bedroom house. The landlord is a council and has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident viewed the property on 3 September 2024, accepted it, and completed the sign-up paperwork the following day. She was handed the keys before her tenancy start date. On 11 September 2024 she reported a leak from the kitchen sink which the landlord repaired. She told it she would not move into the property on 13 September 2024 due to the condition of the kitchen. The same day she made a stage 1 complaint which was about:
    1. The cleanliness of the kitchen, rusty hinges, broken under sink cupboard, dirty toilets, and that the property had not been painted.
    2. Having been told some repairs were still needed during the viewing which had not been done.
    3. Some possessions belonging to the previous tenant had been left in a cupboard.
  3. On 23 September 2023 the resident reported that her bath was blocked and filling with wastewater. She also reported a leak coming through her living room ceiling. The landlord said it could send someone the following day, or she could call its out of hours service, which she did. It attended that evening, suspected a leak from the toilet, found the bath waste pipe was coming apart, and advised her not to use either. Later that evening part of the living room ceiling collapsed.
  4. Between 24 and 26 September 2024 the landlord attended, repaired the bath waste pipe and a leak on the toilet flush (clean water) pipe. It also moved the resident and her children back to her previous temporary accommodation. It arranged repairs for the ceiling and an asbestos test. It also provided a plan of works to the resident. On 26 September 2024 it provided its stage 1 response, in which it:
    1. Set out the complaint, additional elements the resident had added, and a timeline of events.
    2. Explained the turn on and test process for a new boiler, and that a repair had to be raised following this, which was completed on 20 September 2024 when the boiler was left working. It apologised and agreed to change the tenancy start date due to this.
    3. Said it had not been able to send a plumber when she reported the leak as none were available.
    4. Concluded the property was let in an acceptable condition, the kitchen was serviceable, and it had completed a “builder’s clean…mopping the floors and wiping the surfaces”. It disputed the toilets were not clean but accepted some items had been left, for which it apologised. It agreed to reimburse the resident for the new hinges she had bought.
    5. Recognised the frustration and inconvenience caused by the leak and ceiling collapse but said it had acted swiftly to assist her. It noted it would assist her with a claim to its liability insurers for damage to her possessions.
    6. Did not uphold the complaint, but offered £300 compensation for inconvenience, time and trouble.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 27 September 2024. She disputed the landlord’s response, said the water which came through her ceiling contained sewage and it caused her family to be unwell. She said moving back to temporary accommodation had caused distress and was uncomfortable. She also said none of the issues she complained about would have happened if it had fixed the property properly before letting.
  6. Between 4 and 18 October 2024 the landlord provided a copy of the asbestos test results, which were negative, to the resident. It completed the repairs and arranged to move the resident and her possessions back to the property. It provided its stage 2 response on 24 October 2024, in which it:
    1. Confirmed it had unblocked the bath pipework and had not found a leak but had repaired a leak from the clean water pipe to the toilet. It also listed the repairs it had completed by 15 October 2024.
    2. Apologised for the leaks but confirmed none were present during the void works or post inspection.
    3. Said it had provided the best advice it could have when she reported the leak, and that it had attended promptly.
    4. Confirmed the property was let in a suitable and acceptable condition and had been post inspected prior to letting.
    5. Said it would adjust the tenancy start date to commence on 21 October 2024.
    6. Did not uphold the complaint but offered increased compensation of £400 to reflect the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble she had endured.
  7. On 11 October 2024 the landlord reimbursed the resident for the electricity it had used during the repairs. On an unknown date the landlord’s insurance company rejected her claim. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord had not left the property safe and habitable before letting. When the ceiling collapsed wastewater came down and the smell was really bad. Having to go back to temporary accommodation was difficult and the sleeping arrangements aggravated her back condition, and she had recently had surgery. She said she followed the landlord’s advice and submitted an insurance claim but cannot understand how it has rejected any liability for her possessions.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property upon letting

  1. The landlord completed an inspection of the property on 19 August 2024 and took photographs of its condition. It raised repairs on 21 August 2024 which it completed, including a boiler replacement. It post-inspected and took photographs on 3 September 2023. Its actions were in compliance with its voids procedure.
  2. In line with its procedure, it invited the resident to view the property which she did. She signed an acceptance document which stated she had inspected the property, and all fixtures and fittings were in good condition, with no internal repairs to be completed after she moved in. The only repair outstanding, noted on the landlord’s paperwork, was to a garden fence. She also signed a sign-up checklist to confirm she had received copies of gas, electricity, and window safety certificates, and an Electrical Performance Certificate.
  3. Within her stage 1 complaint the resident raised her concerns about the condition of the property. The landlord’s response explained the standard it let its properties. It explained it did not renew kitchens if they were serviceable, and accepted it only completed a “basic” clean, as per its standard practice. It stated this did not include degreasing the tops of kitchen cupboards. The landlord does not have a lettable standard policy. It has a tick sheet for pre and post voids work inspections, but this does not set out its cleaning standard. It also explained that the cupboard hinges were usable but positively agreed to reimburse her as she had bought new ones. It also said it had changed the toilet seats and left them clean, in line with its repairs tick sheet completed for the void works. Positively it did apologise for its oversight in not removing items from one cupboard.
  4. Regarding her boiler, the landlord accepted there was a delay between the turn on and test and repairing it, and it appropriately agreed to push back the tenancy start date due to this. It also offered £50 compensation, as a goodwill gesture, for the cleaning she had had to complete, which was solution focused. The landlord repeated its position in its stage 2 response and confirmed a new start date of 21 October 2024.
  5. There is no evidence of any leaks during the void period or prior to the landlord handing the keys to the resident. Considering the actions the landlord took pre-letting, it followed its voids procedure. However, it agreed as part of its complaint resolution to amend the tenancy start date, which it has failed to do. The resident’s rent statement shows it started to charge rent from the original tenancy start date of 16 October 2024, and not the amended one of 21 October 2024. This means it charged 5 weeks’ rent which it had agreed not to charge by changing the start date. Therefore, there was maladministration. To reflect the additional inconvenience caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to the resident. This amount is inclusive of its £50 offer. An order has also been made regarding the resident’s rent account.

The landlord’s handling of a ceiling collapse and associated repairs

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property. It is also responsible for repairing installations for the supply of electricity, gas, water, sanitation and heating. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under its repairs policy it classes repairs as either emergency, urgent or non-urgent. Each class is further broken down with different response timeframes. It will complete emergency repairs within between 2 and 24 hours, urgent repairs within between 3 and 7 working days, and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will insure the building but advises residents to consider taking out their own contents insurance.
  2. The resident called the landlord to report a leak, and her bath blockage, 19 days after she signed the tenancy agreement. It checked but could not find a plumber to attend, so recommended she call its out of hours service, or wait until the following day. Under its policy a “major burst” should be attended within 2 hours and other burst pipes within one working day. The policy does not set a timeframe for other types of leaks. However, it did attend very promptly and within its 2-hour timeframe once she called its out of hours service. When it attended it inspected, identified a leak on the toilet but said it could not get to it due to boxing in around the toilet. It correctly advised the resident not to use the bathroom, and she said it also isolated the water supply to the bathroom. These were solution focused steps to try to make safe.
  3. When the resident, and the landlord, had concerns for the living room ceiling it is not clear why neither thought to remove all items from underneath that area. It would have been helpful if the landlord had suggested this, as it may have mitigated or prevented further damage before the ceiling collapsed. Within the evidence the landlord explained it was unable to make the ceiling safe, as it did not have the specialist equipment needed to prop it up. It said it was not standard practice to have this equipment to hand. While it would have been helpful, it is understandable that it did not have equipment for every possible repair situation.
  4. It is not clear from the evidence what caused the ceiling to collapse. It may have been a release of the wastewater from the blocked bath pipework, or a clean water leak from the pipe under the toilet cistern, or a combination of both. There is, however, no evidence the leak contained sewage or wastewater from the toilet wastewater pipework.
  5. Following the collapse the landlord agreed to temporarily move the resident and her family back to her previous temporary accommodation the following day. It also fixed the bath wastepipe, cleaned the pipework, and repaired the leak on the toilet. It completed these repairs well within its urgent timeframe for repairs to water supply installations of 7 working days. It arranged further works and updated the resident within 2 days, which was positive. It completed the asbestos check, and all remedial repairs to the ceiling, within 15 working days, within its non-urgent timeframe. It also paid for the electricity it used during the works.
  6. Within its stage 1 response the landlord empathised with the resident but explained it had acted swiftly once she had reported the leak. It advised her to make a claim to its insurers regarding damage to her possessions rather than dealing with it as part of her complaint. This was in line with its complaints policy, as a listed exclusion, and its insurers were better placed to investigate any liability. While it did not uphold the complaint, it did offer £250 at stage 1 to recognise the inconvenience of having to go back into temporary accommodation. It increased this to £350 at stage 2, due to the delay caused by having to carry out an asbestos test. It also agreed to redecorate the bathroom. It offered this despite not upholding the complaint. The landlord demonstrated the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, even though it was not at fault.
  7. The Ombudsman recognises that the leak and ceiling collapse caused significant distress and inconvenience, upheaval and frustration for the resident. However, there is no evidence the leak or blockage was present before the property was let. Once she reported it, the landlord acted promptly, and in line with its repairs policy to try to resolve the leak. It also acted promptly following the unfortunate ceiling collapse to put things right. There was no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the condition the property was let in.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a ceiling collapse and associated repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failing detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its failure to amend the tenancy start date.
    3. Write off the rent amount of £1,135.30 charged between 16 and 20 October 2024, or credit this amount to the rent account.
    4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay directly to the resident the £350 it offered within its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    2. Create a lettings standard policy with detailed information on the types and standard of repairs it will complete, and level of cleanliness it will achieve, before letting a property.