Southwark Council (202347068)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347068

Southwark Council

29 September 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 the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damage.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat located on the ground floor of the building.
On 23 February 2023 the resident reported a leak that was coming into his bathroom from the flat above. The landlord attended on the same day and made sure the electrics in the resident’s bathroom were safe.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 17 March 2023. He stated he was unhappy because:
1. The reported leak had not been stopped.
2. He had not been contacted since someone came out on the reporting day to look at the leak.
3. Of the damages that were being caused because of the leak.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 May 2023. It said:
1. The leak was stopped in the first week of April 2023.
2. It had tried to contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the damages caused by the leak. It asked the resident for a date for the inspection.
On 24 August 2023 the landlord arranged to pay the resident £110 compensation for the complaint. It said this was for the delay in stopping the leak and for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 3 July 2024. He was unhappy as he wanted the landlord to repair his flooring.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 August 2024. It said that:
1. It carried out repairs to the resident’s bathroom on 15 June 2023.
2. It had not carried out repairs to the resident’s hallway floor. The landlord had no record that it said it would replace the flooring. It said the flooring was an insurance matter because the resident had installed laminate flooring without its permission.
3. The resident had submitted an insurance claim through its insurer, but this had been denied.
4. Its stage 2 complaint response was delayed. It offered the resident £50 compensation.
The resident referred his complaint to us on 19 September 2024 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the repairs and his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord did not replace his floor coverings. The landlord referred the resident to its insurer about this. The insurer then investigated the resident’s claim. We cannot assess the actions of an insurer. An insurance company is a separate organisation and the landlord is not responsible for its actions. We can look at the actions of the landlord when referring to its insurer and any related contact with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damage

The landlord’s tenants handbook says the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property. The repairs guide says the landlord is not responsible for floor coverings. The tenants handbook says the landlord cannot insure a resident’s belongings and decorations against leaks. It recommends a resident takes out contents insurance.
The landlord’s tenants handbook and repairs guide says an emergency repair will be attended to in 24 hours. An urgent repair will be attended to within 3 days and a non-urgent repair within 20 working days. For an emergency repair, the tenant’s handbook gives an example of a serious plumbing leak where the building is in danger of damage and the leak cannot be contained in a bucket. The repairs guide says no working light in the bathroom would be classed as an emergency. An example given for an urgent repair in the tenant’s handbook is the loss of some electrical power.
The resident reported a leak on 23 February 2023. The landlord attended on the same day. It identified that the leak was affecting the electrics in the bathroom. It made sure the electrics were safe and recorded that further action was needed to contain the leak. To make the electrics safe, the landlord disconnected the bathroom light. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports within its timescales. The landlord acted appropriately here.
The evidence shows that the landlord stopped a leak in the building on 20 April 2023. The landlord’s complaint responses say the leak was stopped on 5 April 2023. There is evidence that the landlord was arranging to visit the resident’s property on 5 April 2023, however there’s no record of this visit or of the leak being repaired that day. This is a record keeping failure of the landlord.
The landlord did not stop the leak quickly enough. In its initial visit, it assessed the leak as uncontainable. However, it then left the leak for over a month before taking action to stop it. The repairs completed by the landlord show that the building was in danger of damage. The leak could not be contained in a bucket and eventually the resident’s bathroom needed to be redecorated. Therefore, it is reasonable to say this was an emergency repair. While it initially attended within its timescales, the landlord subsequently failed to follow these timescales as the leak was ongoing for at least 29 working days.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement on 4 April 2023. It said it would stop the leak the next day and then request repairs for the resident. The landlord did not request these repairs until after its stage 1 response. This meant there was a delay to the repairs to the bathroom. The landlord did not act reasonably telling the resident this and then not carrying out the promised action.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 22 May 2023, the landlord committed to inspecting the resident’s property for damages. The landlord inspected on 31 May 2023 and concluded the bathroom needed a stain block and to be redecorated. It carried out these repairs on 15 June 2023. As the leak had been stopped, it is reasonable to say the landlord classed these repairs as non-urgent. The landlord completed the repairs 17 working days from its stage 1 response. The landlord acted appropriately here. Though, though given its commitment in its stage 1 acknowledgement, the repairs should have been completed sooner.
The landlord did not reconnect the resident’s bathroom light until 21 June 2023. This meant the resident was without a light in his bathroom for around 2 months after the leak was fixed. According to the tenant’s handbook and the repairs guide, the landlord should have classed this as an emergency or urgent repair. The landlord should have reconnected the resident’s bathroom light sooner. It did not act appropriately or in line with the tenant’s handbook or repairs guide here.
The landlord did offer the resident an appointment for his bathroom light to be fixed on 31 May 2023 and did arrange an appointment to complete the repair on 2 June 2023. However, the resident rearranged the appointment on 2 June 2023 as he was out of the country. The landlord acted appropriately in trying to arrange to fix the bathroom light. However, even if the bathroom light had been fixed on 31 May 2023 this would have been well outside of the landlord’s timescales for an emergency or urgent repair. The landlord still would have failed to follow the tenant’s handbook or repairs guide here.
When reporting the leak, the resident mentioned that he was disabled. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its response. There is no evidence that it factored this into its decision making. The resident said he was vulnerable and having to clean up the leak himself. He was left without a light in his bathroom for around 2 months. Even considering the missed repair appointment, the landlord should have contacted the resident to see if it could offer any support in this period. It did not act reasonably in this situation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s mention of vulnerabilities in an email on 24 May 2023. It referred him to a separate team. The resident replied that he had contacted that team before and nothing had been done. There is evidence that the landlord chased this internally. It is reasonable that the landlord attempted to support the resident in trying to get his vulnerability recorded. However, there is no evidence the vulnerabilities were recorded after this. There is no evidence that the landlord factored the resident’s vulnerabilities into its management of the repair. We believe it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this information when managing these repairs. The landlord did not act reasonably here.
The resident believes that the landlord should also have repaired his laminate flooring. The landlord is not responsible for floor coverings inside the resident’s home. However, it was responsible for repairing the leak and the length of time this took. The resident did not have contents insurance. The landlord recognised these points and referred the resident to its liability insurer. There was no obligation on the landlord to replace the floor and it was a reasonable and proportionate decision to refer the resident to its insurers for them to make a judgement on liability.
The landlord helped the resident with the claim by providing him with information he requested. It also followed up with its insurance team on 2 occasions to when the resident asked for an update. Ultimately, the landlord was not responsible for the decision that the insurer came to. The landlord supported the resident in making a claim to the insurer. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with what we would expect in such a situation.
In conclusion, the landlord acted quickly to stop the immediate risk posed by the leak. However, after this, it did not respond to the leak within its timescales. It did not repair the bathroom light within its timescales either. The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered the resident £110 compensation. It also supported the resident when he made an insurance claim. The landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging where it had gone wrong and in supporting the resident.
However, we do not think this level of compensation was proportionate in the circumstances, especially considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord did not explore if it could support the resident and he was without a bathroom light for an extended period of time. Because of this, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damage. This acknowledges that the landlord recognised where it had gone wrong, but did not offer a reasonable level of redress.
Considering our guidance on remedies, we believe an appropriate level of compensation would have been £250. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It includes the £110 the landlord offered after stage 1. The landlord should also write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. It should also explore with the resident whether it needs to record any vulnerabilities in its systems.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would respond to a stage 1 complaint in 15 working days and to a stage 2 complaint in 25 working days. However, the acknowledgements sent to the resident committed to providing a stage 1 response in 10 working days and a stage 2 response in 20 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 43 working days. It did not follow its complaint policy or the commitment in its acknowledgement. This was a failure from the landlord.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response in 25 workings days. This was within its complaint policy but not the commitment in its acknowledgement. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint when it said it would. However, it acknowledged this and offered the resident compensation. The landlord acted reasonably here.
In conclusion, both of the landlord’s complaint responses were delayed. It acknowledged fault and offered compensation for it stage 2 response. However, it did neither of these things for its stage 1 response. We therefore find service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.
Considering our guidance on remedies, we believe an appropriate level of compensation would have been £100. This includes the £50 the landlord offered at stage 2. This recognises the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the way it handled the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damage .
2. Paid the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. This is inclusive of the £160 compensation previously offered by the landlord for any elements of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint.
4. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
5. Apologised to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the damage caused by it.
6. Written to the resident to explore whether it should have any vulnerabilities recorded in its system related to the resident.