Southwark Council (202343514)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343514

Southwark Council

8 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a water leak.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant under an agreement dated January 2006. She lives in a two-bedroom maisonette flat with her daughter. The landlord is a local authority.
On 7 January 2024, the resident reported a water leak in her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord attended out of hours. It was unable to resolve the leak and raised a job for a contractor to attend.
The resident continued to chase the landlord to fix the leak. She was concerned about the damage the leak was causing and told the landlord her daughter was unable to use her bedroom because of it.
On 13 January 2024, the resident raised a complaint by email. She said that:
1. The landlord had not contacted her about the issue and it had gotten worse.
2. She was concerned as the walls were soaking wet and water was dripping on the floor. There was substantial damage to the walls, floorboards, and a cabinet.
3. She felt the damp was putting her daughter’s life in danger and she was unable to use the bedroom because of it.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 29 January 2024. It said:
1. It acknowledged the health concerns the resident had raised but said it was not qualified to respond and advised her to raise these with her GP.
2. It had arranged an inspection after 2 visits to the property. The inspection recommended internal repairs and further investigation to source the exact cause of the leak.
3. Its repairs team would be in contact to arrange an appointment for the leak and it had arranged a damp and mould inspection for 7 March 2024.
4. It noted that the resident had said she had items damaged by the leak. It said it advised all tenants to have home contents insurance and that the resident would need to make a claim through their insurance policy for any goods, furniture or personal items that the leak may have damaged.
5. It advised the resident to complete a property liability form if there was no insurance policy in place.
6. It partially upheld the complaint as although it had made efforts to remedy the leak, it had not resolved the issue and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the same day. She said it had been time consuming chasing repairs and the landlord had not explained the delay in resolving the leak. She felt it had not taken accountability for the impact on her daughter’s health.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 28 February 2024. It upheld the complaint and said it had determined the leak was coming from above. An appointment had been scheduled for 1 March 2024 to attend the property above. It was confident that the cause of the leak could be resolved during the appointment. It acknowledged that the issue had been ongoing for 8 weeks and apologised for the delay.
When the resident initially contacted the Ombudsman, she wanted the landlord to resolve the leak and repair the damage caused by the leak. However, the leak has since been repaired and remedial works completed. The resident is now seeking an apology from the landlord and compensation for the distress caused to her and her daughter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has expressed concerns over the impact the leak had on her and her daughter’s health and wellbeing. We do not question this. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The courts are better suited to handle this issue as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The stage 1 complaint references damp and mould. However, this issue was not escalated to and included in the stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman does not investigate matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. We will therefore not investigate this as a separate issue.
While the Ombudsman can assess the landlord’s response for issues it has responsibility for, including putting right decorations following repairs in this case, it cannot determine liability for damage to personal belongings. It does not have the authority or expertise to do so. However, we can check if the landlord followed the correct process, acted fairly, and used good practice.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a water leak

The resident reported a leak in the bedroom on 7 January 2024. The landlord attended out of hours the same day. It found a problem with the rainwater pipe and said the leaks from above team would need to investigate. It attended in line with its tenant’s handbook, which says it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours. Although the leak was not fixed, the landlord put steps in place to find the cause of the leak, making its initial response appropriate.
In her complaint on 13 January 2024 the resident said she was concerned about the damage the leak had done to her laminate flooring and furniture. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it advised all tenants to have home contents insurance and that the resident should make a claim through her insurance company for any goods, furniture or personal belongings damaged by the leak. It also said that if the resident did not have home insurance in place, she should complete a property liability form. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will not normally pay for items that have been (or could have been) insured. This is an appropriate response in line with its compensation policy.
On the 17 January 2024 the landlord referred the job to investigate the cause of the leak to another team as it said it was ‘underground’. It then passed the job to another team on the 22 January 2024 to investigate.
On 1 February 2024, a contractor attended and cleared a stack pipe. They noted that if the leak continued, they recommended checking the property above for leaks. The resident made the landlord aware on the same day that the leak was still ongoing. On the 7 February 2024 the job was passed back to the leaks from above team to investigate. However, on the 9 February 2024 the leaks from above team reviewed reports and photos and referred the job back to communal repairs without attending either property.
In total, the landlord passed the job to resolve the leak between teams on at least 8 occasions with no one team taking overall responsibility for the repairs. This is likely to have contributed to unnecessary delays to the completion of work. The number of visits would also have been inconvenient for the resident and the lack of a resolution to the problem is likely to have caused her frustration.
The resident had told the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that her daughter was unable to use the bedroom because of the leak. She had also said that her and her daughter had developed coughs since the leak. In an email on 9 February 2024, she again told the landlord that her daughter was unable to use the bedroom and was sleeping in the living room. This should have prompted the landlord to assess if the bedroom was habitable, especially as the resident was saying the leak was impacting their health. There is no evidence that the landlord took such action.
On 16 February 2024 the landlord confirmed it had traced the leak to the property above and arranged an inspection of the property for 1 March 2024, four weeks after its contractor made the recommendation for it to do so. There is no evidence it tried to visit the property earlier. The delay in scheduling an appointment was unreasonable. The resident had already described the distress caused by the leak in her daughter’s bedroom. The delay likely increased her distress and prolonged the impact of the unresolved issue.
When the landlord responded at stage 2 on 28 February 2024 the leak remained unresolved. The landlord said it would fix the issue by 1 March 2024. It acknowledged that this was 8 weeks after the resident had reported the issue and apologised for the delay. It awarded the resident £40 compensation for delays; this was £5 per week for 8 weeks. This is in line with its compensation policy that says it can award £5 per week for delays when it assesses the impact on the resident as ‘low’. This response was reasonable and shows the landlord considered its compensation policy.
From when the leak was reported on 7 January 2024 to the landlord providing the stage 2 response there is evidence the resident contacted the landlord regularly to chase a resolution to the leak. She contacted the landlord by phone or email on at least 17 separate days, sometimes multiple times a day. Its compensation policy says it can award between £50 and £250 for time and trouble. The landlord awarded the resident £60 for time and trouble at stage 2. Although this amount is at the lower end of the compensation it could award, it showed that the landlord recognised the impact chasing a resolve had on the resident and attempted to put things right.
The resident also said that the leak had caused damage in the bedroom. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that once the leak was resolved it would send an officer to the property to assess the damage caused by the leak. This is an appropriate response by the landlord. It is reasonable that it could not give a date for the appointment at this stage as the leak was not yet repaired.
The landlord’s stage 2 response accepted that there had been delays in resolving the leak, it apologised for this and awarded compensation. It agreed to assess the damage once the leak was resolved. It acknowledged the time and trouble the resident had put into to chasing a resolve, apologised and awarded compensation.
However, throughout the complaints process the resident repeatedly expressed distress over the situation. In her stage 1 complaint she told the landlord she was concerned the leak was impacting her and her daughter’s health, this would have been worrying for her. She has shown she was frustrated in numerous emails about the lack of progress and in an email on 16 February 2024 she told the landlord that it had been a ‘very stressful situation’.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for awards for distress which it says includes stress, frustration, worry and inconvenience. It made no such award during the complaints process. The resident expressed her distress on multiple occasions and it is it is evident that the situation will have likely caused frustration, worry and inconvenience. In our view, the landlord failed to apply its own policy appropriately by not issuing a separate award for distress.
The landlord said it had an appointment to attend the property above on 1 March 2024 and assured the resident that it was ‘confident the cause of the water penetration would be resolved during this appointment’. However, the leak was not resolved on that day as the landlord was unable to gain access to the property. While it is recognised that the inability to resolve the leak was outside of the landlord’s control, the assurance it gave the resident that the leak ‘would be’ resolved on that day is likely to have raised her expectations. When the leak was not resolved she is likely to have experienced further frustration.
The landlord has recently advised the Ombudsman that the leak was remedied by 21 May 2024. This was almost 5 months after the resident reported the leak and almost 3 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. It is unclear how the landlord categorised the leak but its repairs guide says it will complete non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. The delay in resolving the leak is unreasonable and outside of the time frames the landlord has in place. It will have likely caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord completed an inspection of the property on 15 May 2024 to assess the damage caused by the leak. It said it would remove the defective ducting and reinstate new panels to match the existing. The resident said more work was needed. The landlord re-assessed the property on 4 June 2024 and agreed to replaster and repaint the bedroom wall. This reflects the landlord’s commitment in its stage 2 response.
The landlord confirmed these jobs were completed by 17 September 2024, which shows that the landlord met its commitments in completing works it said it would.
Overall, the landlord identified some of its failings and made steps to put those failings right through the complaints process. However, the events since the stage 2 response highlight the landlord has not shown sufficient learning from the outcome of the complaint. There were further delays in it repairing the leak. In total, it took the landlord almost five months to repair the leak. This is an unreasonable amount of time and not in line with its repair guide. The landlord also failed to apply its compensation policy and make an award for distress. For this reason, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leak and have made an order for further compensation below.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord must pay the resident £310 compensation. This is calculated using the landlord’s compensation policy as follows:
1. Further delays: 2 March 2024 to 21 May 2024 (12 weeks at £5 per week, total of £60).
2. Distress: 7 January 2024 to 21 May 2024 (20 weeks at £10 per week, total of £200).
3. Time and trouble: an additional £50.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of a leak.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies.
2. Pay the resident £310 in compensation in recognition of the delays, distress, time and trouble caused by the failings identified in this report. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against the rent account.
3. Pay the resident the £100 compensation awarded at stage 2 if it has not done so already.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review its internal procedures for passing repairs between teams, ensuring it has clear lines of accountability and joined up working between departments to avoid unnecessary delays.