Southwark Council (202424441)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424441

Southwark Council

3 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak from above.
   2. The formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a ground floor flat within a block. The landlord is a council. There are no recorded vulnerabilities.
3. On 25 October 2023 the resident reported a leak into the property. The landlord inspected the property and tried to gain access to 2 flats above during November 2023. He emailed the landlord on 22 December 2023, as he had not been contacted about the ongoing leak. It raised a stage 1 complaint and acknowledged it on 27 December 2023. The resident continued to email it, and it requested an extension of time to respond on 15 January 2024. The landlord gained access to the property above and recommended repairs to the balcony on 18 January 2024, which it completed on 28 February 2024. It provided its stage 1 complaint response the following day, in which it apologised for its delay in completing repairs. It upheld the complaint and offered £330 compensation for delay, inconvenience, time and trouble.
4. The resident told the landlord that the property had completely dried out on 18 March 2024. However, he then reported the leak had returned after heavy rainfall on 27 March 2024. The landlord inspected and said it needed scaffolding in April 2024, which it said it would put up on 30 May 2024. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 14 May 2024 due to the delay in completing the repairs. Throughout May 2024 the landlord did not manage to gain access to the flats above the property. It managed to gain access, and inspect both, by 13 June 2024 and said the leak was from the balconies. It acknowledged escalation the following day and asked for an extension of time on 8 July 2024. It inspected using the scaffolding on 22 July 2024 and completed some further repairs on 25 July 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 26 July 2024 in which it:
   1. Said the resident had escalated the complaint on 14 June 2024.
   2. Upheld the complaint due to delays. It explained its difficulty in gaining access to other flats but accepted it had failed to provide updates to him. It also said some of his neighbours needed to clear their balconies to allow for further repairs.
   3. Apologised for its delays in providing both its complaint responses.
   4. Offered additional compensation of £530 for delays, inconvenience, time and trouble.
5. Between 31 July 2024 and 10 September 2024 in internal emails the landlord chased, was confused about, then confirmed the relevant balconies had been cleared ready for repairs. It repaired a leaking overflow pipe on 16 October 2024 and completed repairs to the balconies on 18 October 2024. During this time the resident emailed it repeatedly asking for updates. He also asked it in October, November and December 2024 to confirm it had completed the repairs. It requested neighbours clear their balconies again in January 2025 and completed further repairs on 27 June 2025. It called the resident on 30 June 2025 and told the Ombudsman that he confirmed there had been no further leaks since October 2024.
6. The resident has told the Ombudsman that there are still issues with leaks within the block, and scaffolding is still up. While his leak was resolved, he said he is still being asked to provide access to contractors. He said there is poor communication within the landlord’s departments. He also said the leak has caused him inconvenience and stress, and extra expenses.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak from above

7. Under the lease the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and the common parts of the building. It confirms this within its leaseholders’ guide. The guide also explains that it has a specialist team which handles leaks from above but clarifies this relates only to plumbing leaks and not roof leaks. Within its repairs guide, the landlord says it will make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will complete urgent repairs within 3 working days and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. The guide does not state whether these timeframes apply to communal repairs.
8. When the resident first reported the leak, the landlord delayed in attending to inspect. It then had multiple no accesses to neighbouring flats but did try to arrange appointments and wrote to the neighbours several times. However, it failed to keep the resident updated. Despite his emails, it only replied following his stage 1 complaint. It then failed again to respond to his enquiries until it provided its stage 1 response.
9. When the leak recommenced, after its first repair attempt, the landlord correctly recalled the repair. However, a month passed between the resident reporting the leak and the landlord deciding it needed to put up scaffolding. It then took a further month to put it up, which was an unreasonable delay. During this time the landlord had further difficulties gaining access to neighbouring flats. There appears to have been confusion within the landlord, and silo working, between the communal repairs team and the leaks from above team, which caused further delays. It did not inspect, using the scaffolding, until 22 July 2024, which was almost 4 months after the resident re-reported the leak. This was an unreasonable delay. Positively it then provided a direct named contact and contact details to the resident.
10. Following the stage 2 complaint there was no clear timeframe or plan of works, and it did not give one to the resident which would have been helpful. Again, the landlord appears to have confused itself with the layout of the building and numbering of the flats, which caused further delays to the repairs. This caused the resident to chase it further without success for meaningful updates. He said on 30 September 2024 that he was frustrated with the different teams involved, which was understandable. While the landlord did complete repairs in October 2024, it had taken nearly a year since the resident first reported it. This was an unacceptable delay, outside of any of its repairing timeframes, even when considering its difficulties gaining access to neighbouring properties.
11. Within its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord correctly upheld the complaints and accepted its delays. It said it recognised the inconvenience, time and trouble it had caused. It also offered £860 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
12. Within its stage 2 response the landlord apologised that it had failed to provide updates and that “this could have made [him] feel forgotten and/or ignored” and that its communication “did not meet [his] expectations”. While it is positive the landlord recognised communication failings, these were not due to the resident’s expectations. The landlord repeatedly failed, over a significant period, to provide meaningful updates about the repairs or timeframes involved. He had told it several times the leak was affecting his living room and that he wanted to make an insurance claim and do internal repairs. He could not proceed with this until the leak was repaired and he had received confirmation.
13. Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord took too long to complete effective repairs, even taking into account its access difficulties. There was evidence of silo working and internal confusion about the building and the repairs needed. This led to delay and distress for the resident. Its communication was poor and left him constantly chasing it without meaningful response, which caused further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. To reflect the impact on the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £500 additional compensation to him. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

14. The landlord correctly raised a complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction on 22 December 2023. This was in line with its complaints policy definition of a complaint in use at the time. It acknowledged the complaint within its policy timeframe and said it would respond within 15 working days. This was in line with its policy in use at the time but was not compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. While the landlord then asked for an extension of time, as permitted under the Code, it did not provide its stage 1 response within this extended period which was a failing. It provided it after 45 working days, in breach of its policy and the Code.
15. The resident requested to escalate his complaint in an email he sent to the landlord on 14 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 14 June 2024 and said the request had been made the day before. There is no evidence of an escalation request on 13 June 2024, and if there had been it would have been the second time the resident had requested it. Therefore, the landlord failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within in new complaints policy timeframe. It also failed to comply with paragraph 6.11 of the new 2024 Code then in use to acknowledge escalation within 5 working days.
16. By the date the landlord requested an extension of time to provide its stage 2 response 38 working days had passed since the resident’s escalation request. It requested an extension of time due to staff annual leave, which was not a good reason as required under the new Code. However, positively, it did provide its Stage 2 response on the date it had set. But this was 52 working days after the initial escalation request, which was an unreasonable delay. Within its response it correctly accepted it had delayed in providing both responses and apologised. However, it failed to put things right by offering any remedy.
17. There was service failure which caused further inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £75 compensation to him, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak from above.
19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Orders

20. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £575 additional compensation made up of:
       1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling a leak from above.
       2. £75 for the further inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Confirm what further repairs are required within the block to resolve communal leaks and its plan to complete these repairs with timeframes.
    4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.