Southwark Council (202425084)

Decision
Case ID	202425084
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident lives with her child, who she reported is disabled. The resident reported a leak from the upstairs bathroom that she said had damaged the plaster in the kitchen below and affected the boxing‑in, bath panel, skirting and flooring in the bathroom. She told the landlord that the downstairs electrics were not working due to the leak, and that the external doors and windows required replacement. She said several repairs remained outstanding, which led her to raise a complaint.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak from the bathroom and subsequent repairs.
2. Reports of repairs to the external doors and windows.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the bathroom and subsequent repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the external doors and windows.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

A leak from the bathroom and subsequent repairs

The landlord apologised and offered compensation for delays in completing multiple repairs. However, it did not respond to the resident’s requests for multiple works to be completed for a significant period. It also failed to recognise the full impact of the delayed repairs or complete the actions agreed in its stage 2 response.

Repairs to the external doors and windows

The landlord did not recognise the full impact of delays in repairing the external doors and it is unclear what proportion of the compensation it offered was for these delays.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not acknowledge its initial failure to escalate the resident’s complaint.

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 provided by a senior member of staff 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 26 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,750 made up as follows: £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to her reports of a leak from the bathroom and subsequent repairs £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs to the external doors and windows the £200 it offered in its stage 2 response and an additional £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to her complaint This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any of the £1,395 it offered in its complaint responses if it can evidence that it has already paid this.	No later than 26 March 2026
4	Specific action The landlord must set out its position on the following to the resident in writing: whether it is responsible for any repairs to the bathroom floor or floor covering following the leak, whether it will complete these works, and when whether it is responsible for decoration of the resident’s kitchen following the leak and plastering works, whether it will complete these works, and when whether it is responsible for repairs to the shower rail, whether it will complete these works, and when	No later than 26 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her reports that the window frames are rotten.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 September 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about a leak from the bathroom which she said had caused damage to the kitchen walls, the back door and the downstairs lights. She said there was a leak around the toilet whenever she flushed it. She said this was causing severe stress for her and her child.
15 September 2023	The resident told the landlord there were outstanding bathroom flooring repairs and there was no lighting downstairs. She also said its contractors had advised that she needed a new front door and windows.
18 October 2023	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response. It: apologised for the delay in issuing its response confirmed it repaired the leak and was waiting for the bathroom floor to dry before installing a new toilet, bath panel, boxing-in, and skirting said it would replace the back door said contractors had confirmed they did not assess the windows and the front door did not need to be replaced agreed to inspect and raise or chase any required works apologised that she had to chase for updates and offered £725 compensation for delayed bathroom, kitchen, doors and downstairs lighting repairs
28 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not completed repairs to the bath panel, shower rail, boxing-in, skirting, and flooring in the bathroom. She said it had plastered the kitchen but had not decorated and had left an old toilet outside the property.
20 September 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: it apologised for the delays in investigating and completing the repairs after the leak, responding to the complaint at both stages, and not updating her about the complaint handling delays it had agreed to replace her front door on 27 October 2023 and replaced this on 26 January 2024 it had not noted or completed all the repairs after its inspection in October 2023 but would re-inspect and raise any works identified it offered an additional £670 compensation, including £235 for delays in investigating and completing the repairs, £235 for the distress this caused, and £200 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint it would reassess compensation if it had not completed repairs by 23 October 2024
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said repairs to the bathroom floor, floor covering and shower rail were outstanding and it had not painted over the plaster in the kitchen. She said the window frames were rotten. She wanted the landlord to apologise, pay additional compensation and complete outstanding repairs.

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	Reports of a leak from the bathroom and subsequent repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Our investigation will only consider events from March 2022 onwards. This is so that we can conduct a thorough and effective investigation.
When the resident reported a leak from the bathroom and blown plaster on the kitchen ceiling below on 3 March 2022, the landlord attended the same day and identified that mixer taps on the bath/shower need to be replaced. It completed these works on 16 March 2022 within its 20 working day repairs guide timescale for routine repairs. Its records show that the resident did not report a leak again until 1 August 2023. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to assume the repair resolved the issue.
The landlord did not inspect the plaster in the kitchen to determine its responsibility for repairs in line with its repairs guide. It renewed the plasterboard and plastering on 30 June 2022, which was outside of its routine repairs timescale.
When the resident reported a leak from the bathroom into the living room and kitchen on 1 August 2023, the landlord did not note the severity of the leak or the priority of the repair works. It attended within its routine repairs timescale on 16 August 2023 and identified a new toilet pan, skirting, boxing-in and bath panel were needed in the bathroom. There is no evidence it completed any interim repairs to the leak.
On 22 August 2023 the resident reported a loss of electricity downstairs and concerns about the kitchen ceiling collapsing due to the leak. Although the landlord said works would be completed as soon as possible, it did not clearly prioritise them. While it provided heaters, it did not promptly repair the electrics in line with its repairs guidance or consider alternative solutions for the resident’s lack of kitchen lighting, fridge or freezer.
After the resident requested an emergency response on 5 September 2023 and reported the kitchen ceiling had collapsed on 6 September 2023, the landlord raised but later cancelled works. It did not inspect the kitchen ceiling within its repairs timescales. Though it said it inspected on 26 September, there is no evidence of the visit or its findings.
The landlord carried out interim toilet leak repairs on 7 September 2023, outside the 48‑hour period set out in the tenancy agreement. It planned to renew the boxing‑in, bath panel, skirting and possibly the flooring once the area dried, and on 15 September 2023, told the resident it would address the lighting repairs and bathroom flooring after the leak had fully dried.
The landlord replaced the toilet on 13 October 2023, outside of its timescale for routine repairs.
In its stage 1 response, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to an inspection. During this inspection on 27 October 2023, it noted works were required to plaster the kitchen, renew the bathroom skirting, floor covering and bath panel.
The landlord restored the kitchen lights on 30 October 2023, significantly outside its repairs timescales, which require kitchen lighting to be restored within 24 hours. The resident reported that the delay caused significant disruption and distress to her and her child.
The landlord completed kitchen plastering on 2 November 2023. It is unclear why these works were delayed after it repaired the leak. It did not complete works or confirm its position on kitchen decoration, bathroom flooring, skirting, boxing-in or the bath panel. This was despite the resident chasing these repairs in November 2023, January and February 2024. It did not respond to her report of a shower rail repair on 6 February 2024.
On 7 November 2023 the resident reported that contractors had left an old toilet outside. The landlord did not act for several months and only removed it after she raised the issue again in September 2024.
It was reasonable for the landlord to agree a further inspection in its stage 2 response. Following this inspection on 24 September 2024, it did not inspect or confirm its position on the kitchen decoration, the bathroom flooring, the shower rail, or the toilet left outside. The resident said the landlord told her it would decorate the kitchen or provide paint for her to do so.
The landlord renewed the skirting, boxing-in, and bath panels in the bathroom around 3 October 2024, significantly outside its timescale for routine repairs.
After its stage 1 response, the landlord did not ensure all reported repairs were inspected or completed. It acknowledged this at stage 2 but repeated the same failing and did not consider whether to offer further compensation as agreed in its stage 2 response.
The resident said she struggled to prepare food while there were no electrics in the kitchen. She said the multiple delayed repairs and the collapsed ceiling in the kitchen caused her child significant distress and that the disruptive impact on them was increased due to their neurological condition.
Landlords must clearly break down compensation, so residents understand what each amount covers. At stage 1, the breakdown did not show how compensation was allocated. The substantive compensation offered at stage 2 was for delays in investigating and completing repairs following the leak. For the purpose of the investigation, we have therefore assumed that 50% of the stage 1 compensation (£362.50), and 100% of the stage 2 compensation for substantive issues (£470), is attributed to this element of the complaint. This totals £832.50.
The landlord acknowledged some delays and offered compensation, but did not recognise all failings, fully address the impact, or identify learning. Some repairs remain outstanding, and the compensation offered was not proportionate to the issues identified.
We have therefore made orders in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which had a significant impact on the resident where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but did not acknowledge all its failings. This includes orders for additional compensation and for the landlord to set out its position on the outstanding repairs.

Complaint	Repairs to the external doors and windows
Finding	Service failure

When the resident reported warping and damage to the seals and draught excluders on the front and back doors which required waterproofing on 3 March 2022, the landlord said contractors inspected the doors on 30 June 2023. This was significantly outside the landlord’s routine repairs timescale, and we have not received evidence of the inspection or its outcome.
On 22 August 2023 the resident reported that the front and back doors needed to be replaced, and that a contractor had told her the windows needed to be replaced. The landlord agreed to replace the back door on 29 August 2023, as it was rotting and in poor condition. It was reasonable for it to provide an update on the back door and confirm that contractors had not assessed the windows in its stage 1 response.
After the resident requested a new front door again on 15 September 2023, the landlord’s records confirm the resident refused repairs to the door on 19 September 2023 as she said she did not think they would not stop the rain entering. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm its position on the front door in its stage 1 response.
The landlord replaced the back door on 21 October 2023, significantly outside its repairs timescales. Following an inspection on 27 October 2023, the landlord agreed to replace the resident’s front door. It scheduled to replace this multiple times, but the appointments were cancelled and the reasons why are unclear. It replaced the front door on 26 January 2024, outside its repairs timescales.
The resident said that the front and back doors were rotten, draughts and rain entered her property, and she had to put towels around the doors while the door repairs were outstanding. She said this caused her and her child distress.
The landlord apologised for delays in responding to the resident’s reports of repairs to the external doors but did not acknowledge the full impact on the resident or set out any learning. It attempted to put things right by offering compensation at stage 1, though it is unclear what proportion of the compensation it offered was for the delayed door repairs. It did not clearly acknowledge any additional failures in its stage 2 response, despite identifying the date it agreed to replace the front door, and the date it completed this repair.
As discussed above at paragraph 23 for the purposes of this investigation we have attributed 50% of the compensation the landlord offered at stage 1 (£362.50) to this complaint element. This was not quite proportionate to the failures identified.
We have therefore made orders for the landlord to put things right in line with our remedies guidance, including and order for additional compensation. No failures have been found in relation to the windows, and the resident did not escalate this issue. However, as she has reported that the frames are rotten, we have recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy timescales were compliant with the Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code), save for that it allowed 25 working days for its stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within its complaints policy timescales and initially extended the time for it to respond in line with the Code until 25 September 2023. However, it did not respond until 17 working days after this, and did not provide our details, which was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code.
The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint multiple times between November 2023 and February 2024 when the resident expressed clear dissatisfaction with the outcome of its stage 1 response. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code. It was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint and delayed the resident’s ability to bring her complaint to us.
When the landlord logged the resident’s escalation of 18 February 2024, it acknowledged this in line with its policy timescales. On 14 March 2024 it extended the deadline for its response until 4 April 2024, in line with the Code. Following this, it significantly delayed in issuing its stage 2 response, which was not in line with its complaints policy. It failed to provide our details to the resident, delaying her opportunity to escalate her complaint to us.
The landlord offered some redress for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and acknowledged its complaint handling delays. However, it did not acknowledge its failure to escalate the complaint and the compensation it offered was not quite proportionate to its failures. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to put things right in line with our remedies guidance for a failure that had no permanent impact. This includes an order for additional compensation.

Learning

While the landlord set out a timeline of events and acknowledged the delays in completing works, it failed to identify what had gone wrong, or how to avoid this in future, which was not in line with our dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records did not provide detailed inspection reports outlining its findings and which repairs it was responsible for. This likely impacted its delays in responding to the repairs, and at times, impacted our assessment of its actions.

Communication

The landlord failed to update the resident or confirm its position on outstanding repairs. It did not keep the resident updated about delays in its complaint responses. It is positive that it acknowledged some of its communication failures in its complaint responses.