Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southwark Council (202223626)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223626

Southwark Council

13 June 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 the resident’s reports of leaks into his property from the balcony.

Background

  1. The resident’s lease with the landlord began in 1998. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident does not live in the property. For the purposes of this report the resident is referred to as ‘the resident’. His tenants who live in the property, are referred to as ‘the occupant’.
  2. In May 2022 the resident told the landlord that there was a leak into his property from the balcony. The landlord’s contractor inspected the balcony the following month. It said that there were “no clear or obvious defects”. It recommended sealant works, which it completed in July 2022.
  3. In August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that its works had not resolved the leak. It inspected the balcony the following month. It said that the occupant had stated that there had been no further leaks since its sealant works. It attempted to contact the resident but received no response.
  4. The landlord relayed all this in its stage 1 response in October 2022. It told the resident that it would raise any necessary repairs once it had heard from him.
  5. The landlord has explained that the resident escalated his complaint in January 2023. It did not log this at the time, and no copy has been provided for this investigation. Following contact by the Service on the resident’s behalf, the landlord acknowledged his escalated complaint and attempted to arrange an inspection. The resident disputed the need for a further inspection but the landlord completed it anyway. It said that the occupant had again said that the leak was resolved. It relayed all this in its stage 2 response on 22 March 2023. It said that it had not upheld his complaint on this basis.
  6. From November 2023 to January 2024, the resident sent the landlord photographs that he said proved that the balcony was still leaking. He stated that this had been the case for “approximately 10 years”. The landlord asked him for further information and said that it would consider repairs upon receipt.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matters above. He told us that the landlord’s subsequent works were unsuccessful. He said that he has since had works completed himself, which had resolved the balcony leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman may not consider formal complaints that are made to landlords normally more than 12 months of the matters arising. As such, while the resident has stated that the balcony issues had been present for 10 years, this investigation is focused on his reports from May 2022.
  2. The resident’s further reports of a leak, towards the end of 2023, were made 9 months after his complaint concluded. They are therefore not part of the complaint being considered here. If the resident has concerns about the landlord’s handling of his leak reports from that time, he could consider making a new complaint to the landlord. He could then return to the Ombudsman and ask us to consider his new complaint.

Balcony repairs

  1. The evidence shows that the resident reported the balcony leak to the landlord on 24 May 2022. It inspected the balcony on 9 June 2022, which was well within the 20 working day timeframe in its repairs policy. Its photographic report stated that it had not found any defects but recommended a preventative sealant, which it completed in July 2022.
  2. On 23 August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that the balcony was still leaking. Its inspection on 15 September 2022 was again completed in line with its policy. It recorded that the occupant had said that there had been no further leaks.
  3. The evidence does not show the landlord’s various unsuccessful efforts to contact the resident following its inspection. However, it described this in its stage 1 response on 10 October 2022. The resident did not appear to dispute this point. It was reasonable for its stage 1 response to commit to considering any works that were required, once it had heard from him.
  4. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 16 February 2023. The evidence shows it made attempts over the remainder of the month to arrange a further inspection, in line with the resident’s stated availability.
  5. The resident disputed the need for a further inspection, partly on the basis that he felt that the landlord should raise works based off the photographs he had provided it. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it considered the inspection necessary so as to ensure any issues or repairs were accurately identified. It completed the inspection without the resident on 7 March 2023, which was in line with the timeframe in its policy.
  6. The evidence shows that at the inspection, the occupant “again confirmed there is no active leak into the property and works completed last year had resolved the ingress”. The landlord explained this to the resident in its stage 2 response, on 22 March 2023.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response noted that the resident had pursued his complaint on 5 January 2023. No evidence of this has been seen. Nonetheless, it was appropriate for it to apologise to the resident for not responding until after contact from the Ombudsman. Overlooking the complaint caused a delay, but of a short duration. There is no evidence of any specific impact from the delay, as the landlord promptly started arranging a new inspection and further investigating the complaint.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s inspections were timely and did not identify any defects. It acted upon the statements of the occupant and was proactive in handling its contractor’s recommendation of sealant works. It acknowledged and apologised for its delay in escalating the resident’s complaint, which was a proportionate and reasonable remedy for its complaint handling error.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.