Southwark Council (202339681)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a communal block. The resident does not live in the property; she rents it to a family member. The resident reported 5 leaks from the floor above to the landlord in 2022. She complained to the landlord on 18 December 2022. She said the leak had been “continually causing damage” to her flat for a week.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks from a property above causing damage to the resident’s property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks from an above property causing damage to the resident’s property.
5. The landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Leaks from above

6. The landlord was not pro-active in resolving the leaks from above. It did not take a holistic view of the repair issue or investigate the root cause of the problem. There were repeated leaks over a 12 month period. This caused significant inconvenience to the resident and the landlord’s communication with her during this time was unsatisfactory.

Associated complaint

7. The landlord’s complaints process was unnecessarily lengthy and confusing for the resident. However, its compensation offer reflected the likely distress and inconvenience its handling of the complaint caused the resident.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The resident has referred leaks from above since 2021. We investigate issues which are still ‘live’, it is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint being made. This is usually 12 months prior to the resident making a formal complaint to the landlord. Therefore, this investigation is focused only on the leaks from above reported in 2022. Earlier reports of issues have provided context to the current complaint, but do not form part of this investigation.
9. The resident has also informed us there have been further issues in resolving other matters relating to leaks at the property coming from the balcony via the roof. These included issues that were identified after the events of the formal complaint. This investigation can only consider matters which the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate through its own internal complaints procedure which concluded in January 2024. The resident can make a separate complaint to the landlord about the issues if she wants to. However, we recommend the landlord contacts the resident regarding the other issues and responds to her concerns.
10. Between January 2022 and December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report leaks from above on 5 occasions, which is a significant number. It was unclear, from the evidence provided, how the landlord responded to these individual reports and whether its actions were compliant with its repairs policy. The repairs policy says it will attend “emergency” repairs within 24 hours, “urgent” repairs within 3 working days and non- urgent repairs within 20 working days.
11. The resident told us that, prior to the 5th leak in December 2022, the landlord generally resolved each individual leak within a reasonable timescale. This was positive. However, following so many leaks, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take an overview of the situation and investigate the root cause. There is no evidence that it did so. By not carrying out this assessment, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the underlying issue and prevent further leaks.
12. On 12 December 2022, the resident reported another leak from above her property. The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 and 17 December 2022, stating that the leak was “uncontainable.” The evidence does not show that the landlord treated the matter with urgency. This lack of prompt action likely caused inconvenience and additional effort for the resident.
13. The resident reported another leak from the property above on 12 March 2023. The landlord attended the same day which was positive. It confirmed that water was entering the property continuously. It scheduled a follow-on appointment for 29 March 2023, meaning the leak remained active for 17 days. The landlord explained that the delay was due to the need for a block shutdown, which required giving residents 2 weeks’ notice. In an emergency situation, such as where there is an uncontrollable leak, there is no requirement to give 2 weeks notice to residents before arranging an evacuation of the building. The landlord has not explained why it could not have carried out a block shutdown sooner, therefore its position was unreasonable. It resulted in a significant delay that allowed the leak to continue and increased the risk of further damage.
14. The resident told us that during this period water was “cascading” into her property heavily from a burst pipe. While we acknowledge that the landlord experienced difficulties gaining access to the flat above, it should have prioritised containing the leak. Its repairs policy classifies situations where water cannot be turned off at the stopcock as an emergency repair. The landlord’s handling of this issue did not meet that standard and represented a significant shortcoming.
15. The landlord’s repairs log shows that it completed the “block shutdown” on 29 March 2023. An electrician also attended because the resident reported that the water had entered the electrics. The evidence indicates that the electricity was turned off on 29 March 2023 and reinstated 7 days later. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, we acknowledge the impact on the resident was lessened because the property was not her main residence.
16. The resident’s family member who was occupying the property would have been inconvenienced by the leak and incurred expenses due to this as they had to temporarily move out of the property. The buildings insurance did not cover these expenses. However, the landlord would not be expected to compensate for the family member’s inconvenience or distress as it does not have a landlord-tenant relationship with this person. The landlord is also not required to compensate the resident for loss of rent while the property was unoccupied. However, we acknowledge the property is the resident’s asset and seeing it damaged would have caused concern. Managing communications with the landlord, contractors, and the insurance company over an extended period likely caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience. We have considered this when looking at compensation.
17. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 and 31 March 2023 to report that the leak was continuing. The landlord told us that the leak was resolved on 2 April 2023. This was 3 weeks after it was reported which is significantly outside of its timescales for emergency or urgent repairs.
18. The landlord told us that a building insurance claim was settled for the damage at the property. In its stage 2 complaint response, on 10 January 2024 it said it would not “look into” the costs the resident incurred as these had been covered by the building insurance claim. This was a reasonable response because the resident would not be entitled to claim twice for the same costs.
19. Out Remedies Guidance, sets out our approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance states that compensation of £100-£600 is appropriate where a resident has been adversely affected, and the landlord has not acted to fully put things right. The £200 awarded to the resident at the end of the complaints process was not an appropriate or fair amount. It did not proportionately reflect the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident up until the end of the complaints process. We order the landlord to pay the resident £500 in view of this. This is inclusive of the £200 it previously offered.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy from the time of the complaint said it had a “two phase complaints process”. It stated it would acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days and respond within 15 working days for the original complaint and within 25 working days for the “review”.
21. These timescales are not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. However, the Code did not become statutory until after this complaint, at the start of April 2024. The landlord updated its complaints policy in October 2025 to be in line with the Code.
22. The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 18 December 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 February 2023. This was a failing because it was outside its published timescales.
23. On 28 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord refused, stating that the leak referred to in the original complaint had been resolved and that she needed to submit a new complaint. This response was unnecessarily complex. The original complaint referred to ongoing leaks from above at the property, so the landlord should have progressed the matter to stage 2 in line with its complaints policy at the time.
24. When a landlord declines a resident’s request to escalate a complaint, we expect it to inform the resident of this decision and offer to raise a new stage 1 complaint on their behalf. There is no evidence that the landlord did this. The failure to communicate and offer an alternative route may have led the resident to feel that the landlord was not addressing the issues. It also demonstrates a missed opportunity to take a holistic view of the leaks and investigate the root cause.
25. The resident told us that when the landlord declined her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, she “didn’t know where to turn” and contacted the landlord’s advocacy team. The landlord’s complaints policy, both at the time of the complaint and in its most recent version, does not explain the role of the advocacy team. This lack of clarity made it difficult to understand how the advocacy team fits within the landlord’s complaints process.
26. The advocacy team issued its investigation report on 28 June 2023, which appeared to operate independently of the landlord’s complaints process. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response, dated January 2024, refers to the stage 1 complaint as being made on 18 April 2023—the date the resident contacted the advocacy team. The stage 2 response also uses the same complaint reference number as the advocacy team’s documents but a different reference number from the original complaint. The landlord should clarify the role of its advocacy team within the complaints process if it has not already done so. The resident told us that the complaints process was unclear, and the evidence suggests this confusion contributed to delays in the case.
27. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 21 November 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 January 2024, which was again outside its published timescales. These delays indicate shortcomings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which would have inconvenienced the resident as she was waiting longer than she should have been for a response to her concerns.
28. The landlord awarded £100 compensation to the resident for complaint handling delays. This was broken down as:
    1. £50 for the delayed stage 1 complaint response.
    2. £50 for the delayed stage 2 response.
29. Although there were clear complaint handling failings in the case, the landlord’s offer of compensation for complaint handling is in line with our remedies guidance as referenced above. It suggests awards in this range where a resident has been affected by a landlord’s errors but there has not been a permanent impact.
30. In summary, the award of £100 compensation for the complaint handling delays at stage 1 and 2 of the landlord’s complaints process proportionately reflects the impact of the delays on the resident. Therefore, we consider this to be reasonable redress for complaint handling.

Learning

31. The landlord provided a lack of information regarding the repairs it undertook. The landlord should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, work carried out and completion dates.  
32. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance says that landlords should investigate “patterns of failure” and “avoid a narrow, transactional mindset”. The landlord should “look beyond the immediate fault to understand why the problem occurred and whether there are underlying systemic issues”.
33. The landlord should consider clarifying the role of its advocacy team within the complaints process if it has not already done so.