London Borough of Lewisham (202404632)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404632

Lewisham Council

27 March 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. The resident’s reports of poorly positioned guttering and subsequent internal damage to the property.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident occupies the property, a second floor, 1 bedroom flat, under a secure tenancy which began on 7 May 2018.
3. On 19 January 2023, the resident made a repair request because the guttering was leaking at the back of the property. The landlord arranged for its contractor to replace the guttering on 1 February 2023.
4. On 23 January 2024 and 22 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report that water was still cascading down the windows, coming into the property and making a loud noise.
5. On 29 February 2024, the resident made a formal complaint. In the complaint the resident said:
   1. That she could not use her sitting room due to the thundering noise from the rain coming down the window.
   2. That she had complained about the issue for a number of years.
   3. That the issue should have been repaired the previous year, but the guttering put up by the landlord had been ineffective.
   4. That the rain cascading down the windows was making the walls damp.
   5. That she was confined to one room in the flat, and unable to watch tv in the living room due to the noise.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 21 March 2023. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised that the repairs carried out by its contractor in 2023 had not fully addressed the issue. The landlord confirmed that it had asked its contractor to attend and inspect the property by 28 March 2024 and to report back to the landlord with recommendations for further works.
7. On 26 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said:
   1. That she was expecting to receive the outcome of her complaint by 21 March but had not received any letter.
   2. That the housing repair issue remained unresolved, and she was still unable to use her sitting room and TV.
   3. That the walls at the property were wet where the rain was coming in.
   4. That she wanted her complaint to be escalated.
8. The landlord responded to the resident’s escalation request with its stage 2 complaint response on 7 May 2024. It said:
   1. That it was upholding the resident’s complaint.
   2. That it had emailed its stage 1 response to the resident on 21 March 2024, and was attaching a further copy of the letter with the stage 2 response.
   3. That its contractor had been instructed to carry out the repair.
   4. That once the repair had been carried out externally, it would inspect the internal damage.
   5. That it was offering £100 for the inconvenience and being confined to one room and £100 for the delay in conducting the repair.
9. The resident confirmed that she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered by the landlord, and would like the Ombudsman to investigate her case. She did not think that the compensation offered by the landlord was adequate, and noted that the internal repairs remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The purpose of the complaint process is to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled.
11. With this in mind, and in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman would not usually consider a complaint about a matter which was not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
12. In this case the resident said that she has been reporting issues with the guttering for several years. However, the first reference to the resident reporting this issue within the records provided to the Ombudsman was on 19 January 2023. There are no further records of repair requests or complaints after this date until the resident raised a further repair request on 23 January 2024, and it appears that her initial complaint was subsequently raised on 29 February 2024. Based on this, our investigation has not sought to consider any events earlier than January 2023.

The resident’s reports of poorly positioned guttering and subsequent internal damage to the property.

13. The landlord is obliged under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters, and external pipes.
14. The landlord’s lettable standards state that the property will be structurally sound and weather tight.
15. The landlord’s repair policy states that routine repairs will be undertaken within 20 working days. Where it is not possible for work to be completed within this timeframe, because, for example, the landlord would need to employ a specialist contractor to complete a repair, the landlord’s policy states it will keep tenants updated with progress.
16. The records show that a report to the landlord was made by the resident on 19 January 2023. The landlord’s record states that the gutter was leaking at the back of the property.
17. The records indicate that an appointment was made for a contractor to attend the property on 1 February 2023 and guttering was installed at the property. The landlord responded to the repair and completed works after 9 working days, within the timeframe for routine repairs. This was an appropriate response from the landlord to the resident’s repair request.
18. Following this attendance, the next available record shows that the resident reported the issue again on 23 January 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the repair had been effective following the works carried out by its operative in February 2023 until a problem was reported again on 23 January 2024.
19. Following the resident’s report on 23 January 2024 of a problem with water cascading noisily down the windows at the property, the landlord emailed the resident to request further details on 27 January 2024. The resident responded on 28 January 2024 stating that the problem was in the same place as it was before the landlord had erected guttering the previous year. She said that the guttering had been incorrectly placed, so that the water came straight down the windows and that the guttering needed to be repositioned.
20. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it should have arranged an inspection and repair within 20 working days of the issue being reported, by 20 February 2024. There is no record that an appointment was arranged after the email exchange between the landlord and the resident, and so the resident contacted the landlord to report the issue again on 22 February 2024.
21. There is no record of the landlord arranging to inspect the property after this second repair request. It was inappropriate and contrary to its policy that it took no action following the resident’s repair requests on 23 January and 22 February 2024. The resident subsequently made a formal complaint to the landlord on 29 February 2024.
22. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 March 2024 and updated her that it had arranged for a contractor to inspect and repair the reported issue.
23. In its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 21 March 2024, the landlord again confirmed that it had raised a works order for the guttering repair. While it appropriately apologised that the previous works in 2023 had not resolved the issue, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in investigating the resident’s report of a problem in January 2024. This was inappropriate.
24. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 March 2024, noting that the repair issue was unresolved, and she was still unable to use her sitting room and television.
25. There is no record of the landlord attending at the property, or the resident being updated about when the landlord would complete the repair, after the stage 1 response on the 21 March 2024 until the stage 2 response on 7 May 2024. This further period of inaction and delay was contrary to the landlord’s repair obligations as set out in its repair policy.
26. In its stage 2 response on 7 May 2024, the landlord appropriately apologised for poor service and confirmed that the repair had been raised with its contractor.
27. The records show that the repairs to the guttering took place on 14 May 2024, 78 working days after the issue was reported and after the conclusion of the complaint process. This was contrary to the landlord’s repair policy. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated regarding the repair, which was also contrary to its policy, and meant that the resident had to spend additional time and effort in contacting the landlord, and raising a complaint to chase the repairs.
28. In relation to the internal repairs to damage caused by the guttering, the resident stated that the walls were damp in her complaint letter to the landlord’s chief executive on 29 February 2024.
29. The resident’s escalation request dated 26 March 2024, again stated that the walls in the property were wet where the rain was coming in.
30. In its stage 2 response on 7 May 2024, the landlord confirmed that once the guttering was repaired, it would arrange to inspect and carry out any necessary repair works internally at the property. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the internal damage caused by the leak, and set out its plan to rectify the damage.
31. On 16 May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord. She confirmed that the guttering repairs were complete, but there remained considerable damage to the interior walls.
32. On 30 May 2024, the landlord’s operative attended to inspect the internal damage and noted that the wooden internal windowsill needed to be replaced, that the walls around the window and on the right-hand side needed to be filled and rubbed down, then the area would need to be painted.
33. The Ombudsman can see that the resident requested updates on the repairs on 28 June 2024 and 3 July 2024, and that a request was made by the landlord’s complaints team to schedule the repairs. However, this Service confirmed with the resident on 20 February 2025, that the internal repairs remained outstanding.
34. It is inappropriate that the internal repairs remained outstanding 9 months after the guttering repairs were completed. The landlord had a duty, under its repair policy, to address the repairs within 20 working days. It was also obliged under section 7.3 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), to follow up on the remedy promised in its complaint response through to completion. This did not occur in this case, and meant that the resident had a damp and damaged wall in her main living area, along with a water damaged windowsill, for a prolonged period.
35. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings in handling the resident’s repair to the guttering, and offered compensation in the sum of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
36. In cases where the landlord has admitted failings and offered compensation, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was adequate to put things right and resolve the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.
37. In our view, the sum of £200 previously offered to the resident by the landlord does not adequately recognise the impact of the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the repairs in this case. Moreover, this Service cannot determine that the landlord did enough to put things right, as the internal repairs remained outstanding, with no action by the landlord on the issue for 9 months after the guttering repairs had been carried out.
38. In the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made, and an order is set out below for the landlord to pay to the resident £500 to reflect its handling of this matter. This sum is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £200 and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

39. A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this.
40. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022, which was applicable at the time the landlord received this complaint, landlords were required to:
    1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of receipt. Exceptionally, the landlord could extend this timeline up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons.
    3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of the escalation request. Exceptionally the landlord could extend this timeline up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons, along with a clear timeframe for when the response would be received.
41. On 29 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord via its complaints portal and a letter to the chief executive to raise her complaint.
42. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 March 2024, within 5 working days, which was in line with the deadline set out in the Code. It said it would provide a formal response by 21 March 2024.
43. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 March 2024. This was within 20 working days and complied with the deadline the landlord had specified in its acknowledgement to the resident. This was appropriate and in line with the Code.
44. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not refer to the resident’s concerns about the internal damage at the property. This was inappropriate, because under the Code, landlords are required to address all points raised in a resident’s complaint.
45. In her escalation request on 26 March 2024, the resident informed the landlord that she had not received its stage 1 response and the repairs to the guttering were outstanding.
46. There is no record that the landlord acknowledged the escalation request until it telephoned the resident on 2 May 2024. This was contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy, which stated that the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days.
47. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 7 May 2024, which was 28 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This was in excess of the 20-working day time limit specified by the Code.
48. There is no record that the landlord communicated with the resident to confirm that it required an extension to the 20-working day deadline, or to agree an extension with the resident. This was contrary to the landlord’s complaint policy and the requirements of the Code.
49. The stage 2 response letter confirmed that although the stage 1 response had been issued as promised, a further copy was re-shared. This was reasonable.
50. Overall, a finding of service failure has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Although the landlord apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response, it did not apologise for failing to address the internal repairs in its stage 1 response, or look to put things right at stage 2, which would have been appropriate.
51. The duration and impact of the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling was limited, and therefore an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation in the sum of £50 in respect of its complaint handling. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right.

Determination

52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of poorly positioned guttering and subsequent internal damage to the property.
53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

54. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £550 compensation broken down as follows:
       1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of poorly positioned guttering and subsequent internal damage to the property.
       2. £50 in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

The sum of £550 is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord, and therefore the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation that may already have been paid in relation to this complaint.

3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

55. The Ombudsman is aware that since investigation of this case by the Ombudsman began, the landlord has contacted the resident regarding the outstanding internal repairs. The resident confirmed that, due to personal circumstances, she is unable to agree a suitable time for a visit by the landlord to complete the repairs at the moment, but may be able to arrange a suitable time in 3 to 4 months. It is therefore recommended that the landlord contact the resident 3 months after the date of this report to arrange a suitable time to carry out the outstanding internal repairs.