Southwark Council (202416814)

Decision
Case ID	202416814
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	2 December 2025

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about the length of time it took to respond to her reports of a leak in her property. She also complained about how long it was taking to carry out remedial works to repair damage caused by the leak. She was unhappy with its final response to the complaint and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks and repairs in the property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks and repairs in the property.
2. The landlord has provided reasonable redress to its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of leaks and repairs in the property

The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s reports of leaks and completing follow on repairs. It acknowledged this in its stage 2 response but did not compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord delayed in issuing its stage 2 complaint response in line with its complaints policy. However, it appropriately apologised for this delay within the stage 2 response and compensated 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.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 09 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of leaks and repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 09 January 2026
3	Respond to resident’s reimbursement request The landlord should respond to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs of running a dehumidifier in her property.	No later than 09 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation offered within its complaint responses for its poor complaint handling. This is because we found reasonable redress on the basis that it paid this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 January 2024	The resident reported a leak coming through her bathroom ceiling. The landlord scheduled an inspection for 1 February 2024.
31 January 2024	The resident complained that the landlord had not yet inspected and resolved the leak. She said she had reported the issue “numerous times”, that flooring was wet, and water had leaked into electrics. The landlord attended the same day and made sure the electrics were safe.
1 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. It also arranged for an emergency shutdown of water supply to the block while it investigated the source of the leak.
7 February 2024	The resident added to her complaint. She said there were outstanding repairs in the property as a result of the leak. She said this included decorative repairs to walls and ceilings, a damaged bath panel, and a hole in a wall which the landlord had created when investigating the leak. She asked it to compensate her for this damage.
15 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint. It said: It was sorry it had delayed in resolving the leak. It initially considered the leak to be “containable”, but upon receiving the resident’s reports electrics were affected, it provided an emergency response. It would complete remedial works once the property had fully dried. The resident should claim compensation for damage to personal belongings through her contents insurer or she could make a claim through its liability insurer. It provided a link to its insurance guidance.
Between 5 March 2024 and 7 May 2024	The landlord raised a works order for redecoration to areas affected by the leak on 5 March and completed the work on 5 April. It then raised a works order for plastering of bathroom ceiling and walls, which it completed on 7 May.
16 May 2024 and 21 May 2024	The resident told the landlord on both these dates that the walls and ceilings it had recently redecorated were starting to bubble. The landlord said it would inspect this no later than 4 July 2024 but committed to try and arrange an earlier appointment.
28 May 2024	The resident reported there was a further ceiling leak. The landlord later suggested in its stage 2 response it attended the same day, although it did not have a record of its attendance to confirm what action it took.
Between 31 May 2024 and 20 June 2024	The landlord attended the property on 31 May to investigate the cause of the further leak but recorded it was unable to gain access. It then attended on 11 June. It identified that the source of the leak may be pipework behind tiles in the bathroom. It returned to the property on 20 June to remove the tiles and it renewed a damaged pipe.
21 June 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that the leak was still ongoing and it had not completed all remedial works. She said there was a build up of mould and salt on plasterwork, which was not drying out even though she was constantly running a dehumidifier. She asked it to compensate her for the cost of this and to complete all repairs.
25 June 2024	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint. It said it would treat it as an escalation request of her original complaint and would reply no later than 23 July 2024. In response to this, the resident sent a further email in which she said running the dehumidifier had cost her £500.
Between 26 June 2024 and 12 July 2024	The landlord attended the property on 26 June and 28 June to investigate the leak. It found there was no active leak and plaster needed to dry. It raised a works order on 3 July to reinstate the tiles it had previously removed and to fit a new access hatch in the bathroom.
23 July 2024	The resident’s solicitor sent the landlord a pre-action protocol letter for housing disrepair.
13 August 2024	In response to the pre-action protocol letter, the landlord carried out a disrepair survey of the property. The “Schedule of Disrepair” attached to the survey report included recommendations for various decorative repairs throughout the property. It also included a recommendation that the landlord carried out further leak investigations as wet readings indicated that “the leak [was] still ongoing or the underlying building fabric is holding residual moisture”.
3 September 2024	The resident reported there was a leak affecting electrics in the bathroom. The landlord attended the same day and found no water damage to electrics. It arranged to access the flat above on 23 September 2024 where it suspected the leak was originating from.
20 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint. It set out a timeline of events and acknowledged it had delayed in resolving the leak and completing the associated remedial works. It apologised for the inconvenience and disruption this caused the resident. It said its legal disrepair team was overseeing the repairs identified by the disrepair survey and would offer compensation if appropriate.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said the landlord had not fully resolved the leak or completed all the remedial works. She wanted it to complete this work, compensate her for distress and inconvenience, and reimburse the running costs of the dehumidifier.

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 leaks and repairs in the property
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord was required by its repairs policy to respond to:
1. Emergency repairs, such as burst pipes causing internal flooding, within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs, which were not an emergency but could cause a serious nuisance if not repaired, within 3 working days.
3. Non-urgent repairs, which included minor leaks that were not causing serious damage or a safety risk, within 20 working days.
It took the landlord 8 working days to attend the property following the resident’s initial report of a leak on 19 January 2024. It explained in its stage 1 response that it had initially categorised the leak as being “containable” and had intended to inspect it on 1 February 2024. It therefore initially treated the report as a non-urgent repair but re-categorised it as an emergency repair on 31 January 2024 when the resident reported the leak had become worse and electrics were affected.
Based on the landlord’s account of its actions, its initial response to the leak was in keeping with its repairs policy. However, the resident disputed that the leak was ever containable. She said in her complaint that she had reported the issue “numerous times” between 19 January 2024 and 31 January 2024. The landlord has not provided us with contemporary records such as call logs to show how frequently the resident contacted it or how it initially assessed the leak was containable. Without these records, it is difficult to understand how a leak in a bathroom ceiling, which was likely to be from a pipe, would be classed as “non-urgent” and not at least “urgent”.
The landlord acknowledged in both complaint responses that there was a delay in its response to the leak when the resident reported it had become worse on 31 January 2024. Although it appropriately attended her property the same day to make sure her electrics were safe, it took a further day or two (we do not know the exact date) before it located the source of the leak and stopped it. It explained in its stage 2 response this was because it needed to access other flats in the building, but had difficulty getting in touch with other residents.
The landlord acknowledged within its stage 2 response the following failings in its subsequent handling of remedial works and further leak investigations:
1. It said in its stage 1 response on 15 February 2024 it would complete the remedial works, which involved repairs to decoration and plasterwork, but took until 5 May 2024 to do so. This was not in keeping with the 20 working day timeframe set out in its repairs policy for routine repairs such as this. The reason for the time taken is unclear.
2. When the resident got back in touch with it on 16 May 2024 to report that the walls and ceilings it had recently redecorated were starting to bubble, it offered to attend to this on 4 July 2024. This was not an appropriate timescale for an appointment in line with its repairs policy.
3. It believed it responded to the resident’s reports of a further leak on 28 May 2024 but had no record to show what took place at the appointment. This was poor record keeping.
4. It moved an appointment to further investigate the leak from 4 June 2024 to 11 June 2024. It acknowledged this change may have caused the resident inconvenience and disruption.
5. It took until 20 June 2024 before it had removed tiles and was in a position to resolve the further leak by renewing a damaged pipe. It recognised that the resident had been in contact with it “continuously” for a month while awaiting this resolution to the further leak. It was sorry it had not been able to offer her any earlier appointments to resolve it sooner.
6. It demonstrated “poor management” of the follow on works then required to reinstate the bathroom tiles and install an access hatch, which remained outstanding at the date of the stage 2 response.
The landlord appropriately apologised for these failings in its stage 2 response and said it recognised they caused the resident “inconvenience and disruption”. It had by then carried out a disrepair survey of the property following receipt of a pre-action protocol letter. It therefore appropriately explained that its legal disrepair team would oversee completion of any further leak investigations and repair work as set out in the schedule to the disrepair survey.
The landlord also suggested in its stage 2 response that its legal disrepair team would award compensation. However, we understand that no settlement has been reached and no compensation has ever been paid as part of the disrepair claim. We asked the landlord to confirm this but it has not responded. Given this, we do not find that the complaint has been resolved as the resident should be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings outlined above, which amount to maladministration.
In line with our Remedies Guidance, we have ordered it to pay her £600 compensation. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leaks up to the date of its stage 2 response on 20 September 2024. If the resident is concerned the landlord has not since completed the repair works outlined in the disrepair survey, she should raise this with her solicitor or she may submit a new complaint to the landlord.
We have also ordered the landlord to respond to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the dehumidifier costs as it did not indicate its position within its stage 2 response. If it requires the resident to provide evidence in support of her request, it should explain this to her.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint within the 10 working day timeframe required by its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). When it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint, it correctly identified that in line with its policy and the Code, its response was due within 20 working days. However, it took 62 working days to issue it.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its stage 2 response. It explained the reason for the delay was capacity issues. While that may have been the case, in line with its policy and the Code it should have written to the resident prior to the original due date and advised that the response would be delayed. We saw no evidence it did this. However, we are satisfied that its offer of £50 within the stage 2 response was reasonable compensation for its delayed response.

Learning

Complaint handling

The landlord is reminded that it should follow the extension procedure set out in its complaints policy if there is going to be a delay in it issuing a complaint response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord either did not keep, or did not provide us with, sufficiently detailed records of its phone calls with the resident and its attendance at the property. It is reminded that as well as hampering our investigations, inadequate record keeping can limit its ability to resolve complaints and can lead to delays in it completing repairs. We have explored this in more detail in our Spotlight report ‘Repairing Trust’ (May 2025).