London Borough of Lewisham (202341904)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341904

Lewisham Council

28 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 the resident’s:
   1. Reports of water supply issues.
   2. Reports of noisy pipework.
   3. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   4. Request to be rehoused.

Background

1.             The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a flat.

2.             The repair records show that the landlord raised a work order on 6 September 2019 to inspect the low water pressure. It then raised several further work orders to address the issue between 2020 and 2022.

3.             The resident told her councillor on 3 March 2023 that water supply issues had been ongoing since 2018. She said the landlord had completed works which increased the water pressure, but the supply still regularly cuts out. She said 2 engineers suggested the property below caused the issues. She said the issues were impacting her mental health. She wanted to move and the landlord to pay compensation. On 3 April 2023 the resident told the councillor that the heating system was unbearably loud and disrupts her sleep. It appears the landlord accepted this as a complaint.

4.             The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 April 2023. It apologised that the intermittent water supply issue was ongoing, and it would attend on 21 April 2023 to carry out further investigations. It attended on 14 April 2023 regarding an issue with the radiator, it had ordered a part and would arrange an appointment by 28 April 2023. It said the resident was adequately housed in a 1-bedroom property so was unable to bid on general properties. She was eligible to bid on properties suitable for over 55s. It also encouraged alternative housing options.

5.             The resident escalated the complaint on 15 June 2023. She did not think the works recommended by the contractor to box in the pipes would provide a full resolution. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2023. It said it completed further investigation which suggested reducing the primary pump speed would help to reduce the water flow noise. It would ask the contractor to replace all the radiator control valves because of a possible fault due to their age.

6.             The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2024 as the heating noise and water pressure repairs were unresolved. She was unable to sleep due to the noise and heat of the pipes in the bedroom. She had joined a gym so she could shower. She said her neighbour’s behaviour had escalated.

7.             The landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 4 July 2024.

1. It attended several appointments for the heating pipes and none of the engineers had heard the noise or identified any faults. It proposed installing a thermostatic radiator valve (TRV) as a possible solution.
2. It attended in June 2022 to replace a faulty water pump, which restored the pressure. It investigated lack of pressure in April 2023 but did not find any faults. It noted the TRV may further reduce the water pressure.
3. It required permission from the resident to speak to her neighbour about the ASB reports, but she refused. It offered mediation and asked the resident to report any further incidents.

8.             The resident escalated the complaint on 12 July 2024. She said she was not in adequate housing due to the ongoing water issues. She disputed that the contractors had not heard the noise from the pipes. A contractor had suggested boxing in the pipes, investigating the communal boiler room, and installing a TRV to resolve the issue. She said the landlord had cancelled several appointments due to not having the correct parts. She declined mediation.

9.             In its stage 2 response on 20 August 2024, the landlord reiterated that it found no faults regarding the water pressure or heating and hot water pipes. It had rescheduled the appointment to install the TRV to 20 August 2024 following 2 no access appointments. The resident agreed to mediation on 13 August 2024, but her neighbour refused and made counter-allegations. It did not have sufficient evidence to issue a warning to her neighbour and asked the resident to report any further issues.

10.        In her referral to the Service, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs, as it did not find a resolution. She had to move due to the issues, which had led her to incur additional financial costs. She requested compensation. She also said the issues had a long-term impact on her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11.        The resident reported that the water pressure issues have been ongoing since 2018. However, she did not raise a complaint about the matter until March 2023. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This investigation will therefore consider the landlord’s handling of the matter from April 2022 onwards.

12.        The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reports that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her mental health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

Water supply issues

13.        The landlord’s website states it is responsible for repairs to fixtures and fittings for water. In line with the repairs policy, it should complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It may exceed the response timeframe if follow-on work, inspections, or specialist materials are required.

14.        On 3 March 2023 the resident reported to her councillor she had experienced constant water shortages since 2018, mainly impacting the hot water. She said the contractors previously reported that her neighbour’s flat likely caused the issue. In cases such as this, it can take multiple appointments to identify the cause due to the complex nature of the repair issue. The landlord should ensure it takes appropriate steps to schedule follow-on appointments as soon as possible.

15.        The landlord internally stated on 9 March 2023 that it had previously increased the pressure, checked a faulty cylinder, replaced a faulty booster and transducer, and adjusted the pumps. It inspected the boiler room that day and found the system was working correctly but there could be something restricting the flow rate and bar pressure in the resident and neighbour’s flat. The landlord therefore initially took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns.

16.        The resident felt her neighbour was intentionally causing the issues. We are unable to confirm this. The landlord told the resident on 14 March 2023 that all residents are entitled to use their taps at any time and should not have an impact on the overall water supply as reported by the resident. Nonetheless, the landlord should have considered whether a repair issue caused the neighbour’s water usage to impact the resident’s water pressure.

17.        The landlord told the resident on 14 March 2023 that it would investigate the flow rates and check for air locks or scaling. A contractor attended on 21 April 2023. He noted the resident said the issue only affects the bath taps, not the basin or kitchen taps. The contractor ran all the taps and did not find any faults but said he could replace the bath taps or further investigate the boiler room. The resident was dissatisfied with the outcome of the appointment as the landlord had already changed the taps in 2021. As the repair did not previously resolve the issue, this would unlikely be effective.

18.        It appears the assessment only included testing the taps. Given the resident reported the issue was impacted by her neighbour’s water usage, it was likely the issue was intermittent so the contractor’s assessment would not necessarily be representative of the resident’s experience. The landlord internally noted on 15 March 2023 that it needed to investigate both flats simultaneously to see if the neighbour’s water usage would impact the resident’s water pressure. It stated it may need to put in a pressure reducing valve. This would have been a more effective method to investigate the issues reported by the resident and to identify any works it could complete to resolve the issue. There is no evidence that the landlord completed such appointment so there was a missed opportunity to thoroughly investigate the water pressure issues.

19.        The resident said the original contractor raised a work order for 2 contractors to attend both properties to investigate the issues, but the landlord’s contractor changed, and it did not proceed with the investigation. We do not have record of this, so cannot confirm the resident’s account of events. Nonetheless, it is important that the landlord has a suitable record keeping system in place so that it can oversee and effectively track repair progress in case of any changes in its contractors.

20.        In its final response on 20 August 2024 the landlord apologised that it had not satisfactorily resolved the water pressure issue but reiterated that it replaced a faulty water pump in June 2022, and it found no faults when it attended in April 2023. It does not appear to be proportionate that it dismissed the resident’s multiple reports based on one contractor’s opinion that there were no faults, particularly as the investigation was not exhaustive. There is also no evidence that it completed further investigation of the boiler room as recommended following the April 2023 visit. The landlord has failed to demonstrate it took all reasonable steps to resolve the repair.

21.        The landlord has not recognised that it did not take all reasonable actions to investigate and resolve the water pressure issues. The resident explained to this Service that the issues experienced had a significant impact on her. She said she had to avoid using the bathroom when her neighbour is in as a drop in water pressure can cause dangerously hot water, which led her to join a gym to shower. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £300 compensation as it failed to recognise its failings or take steps to put things right.

Noisy pipework

22.        The landlord is responsible for repairs to fixtures and fittings for space and water heating. The resident reported to her councillor on 3 April 2023 that the heating system was unbearably loud and disrupts her living and sleep.

23.        The landlord initially acted reasonably by promptly attending to investigate the resident’s concerns. The resident said a contractor attended on 13 April 2023 and noted “the system was loud and likened it to the sound of toilet cistern refilling constantly”. The landlord raised a work order the same day to address holes around the pipes in the bathroom.

24.        In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would attend on 21 April 2023 to carry out further investigations. Following the appointment, the resident said the contractor only assessed the water pressure issues and not the noisy heating system. The Service’s complaint handling code states that “any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion”. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not assess the noise as agreed.

25.        The resident chased the matter on 30 May 2023. She raised concerns that boxing in the pipes in the bedroom, as suggested by the contractor on 13 April 2023, would not provide a full resolution as the issue was also ongoing in the living room. Although the repair records show that the contractor recognised the holes around the pipes, it does not provide any details of the recommended solution. The resident said the contractor put steel wool in the holes on 12 June 2023 to limit sound. The repair records show the landlord completed works on 12 June 2023, but do not provide any details of the works.

26.        The landlord should ensure that its repair records have sufficient detail so it can properly manage repairs. This should include when it attends, details of its findings and any recommended follow-on works, and the date it completes the work in full. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. In this case, the lack of records likely prevented the landlord from arranging works to box in the pipes at an earlier date.

27.        In its stage 2 response on 18 July 2023 the landlord said its contractor suggested reducing the primary pump speed would help reduce the water flow noise. It also said due to the age of the system, there could be an issue with the control valve allowing water to pass when it is turned off, which could result in a rushing water sound. It would replace all the radiator control valves. It is unclear when the landlord identified the need for these works. The landlord raised a work order on 6 September 2023 to replace the TRV, which it completed on 2 November 2023. It therefore did not complete the works until 8 months after the resident initially reported the issue and 4 months after it agreed to complete the works. This was an unreasonable delay.

28.        The resident told the Service on 18 June 2024 that the works did not resolve the noise. However, there is no evidence that she chased the matter with the landlord in the interim period so it may not have had the opportunity to identify that the repair did not provide a full and lasting resolution.

29.        In its final response, the landlord said none of the engineers had heard the noise from the heating system or found any faults. The resident disputed this. There is insufficient information in the repair records to conclude whether the landlord’s assertion that the contractors had not witnessed the noise was correct. However, it appears the tone of the response sought to dismiss the resident’s concerns, which was unreasonable given she had made numerous reports and explained the significant impact on her sleep.

30.        The landlord proposed installing a TRV but said it could not confirm this would resolve the issue. The landlord was unable to access the property on 19 July 2024 or 31 July 2024 to complete the works. It had rescheduled the appointment to 20 August 2024. There is no evidence to confirm that the landlord had subsequently completed the work. The resident said there were several further appointments between the final response and when she moved out in November 2024, but the landlord could not resolve the noise issues.

31.        On 5 September 2024, the resident disputed the landlord’s final response and said the landlord completed the following appointments:

1. 14 March 2024 which found the level of heating in the boiler room was higher than it should be and was the likely cause of the noise. The contractor also said the pipes in the bedroom should be blocked in.
2. 7 May 2024 a contractor said the issue was not relating to the valves and was due to the boiler room.
3. 5 July 2024 the contractor lowered the heat of the pipes in her bedroom.

32.        There is no evidence of any of these appointments in the records provided by the landlord. While we do not doubt the resident’s account, we cannot confirm the outcome of the appointments. It is evident that the landlord’s record keeping has not been sufficient in this case and has impacted our ability to establish the full extent of the landlord’s actions. 

33.        The landlord’s overall handling of the repairs failed to take accountability to resolve the issues and somewhat dismissed the resident’s reports. If it determined no further works were required, the landlord should have clearly explained that it had taken all reasonable steps to resolve the issues reported by the resident. The landlord failed to do so in this case. There is no evidence that the landlord boxed in the pipework or further investigated the communal boiler despite several requests from the resident. There were also substantial delays replacing the TRVs. In view of the identified shortcomings in the handling of this repair, its poor record keeping, and the impact on the resident, the landlord must pay £300 compensation.

34.        In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping – similar to those identified in case 202124577. We have not, however, made any further orders for the landlord to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577 which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with the Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.

35.        Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows the Ombudsman to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the outcome and action needed following the completion of the investigation.

ASB

36.        The landlord’s ASB policy states it considers ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, or nuisance to any person. It considers verbal abuse as category B, which it will respond to within 3 working days. The landlord will agree an action plan in every case and be clear about the actions it can take.

37.        The resident told the landlord on 30 May 2023 about an altercation between her and her neighbour on 27 April 2023. She said her neighbour verbally abused her and the resident subsequently defended herself, which resulted in the police cautioning her. The resident also said that there was an attempted break-in at her property on 10 May 2023 and she did not feel safe.

38.        The landlord’s ASB officer called the resident on 5 June 2023. This slightly exceeded its response timeframe by 1 working day, but the delay was not excessive. During the call, the resident reported her neighbour followed her around the property, but she was unable to provide any evidence. Landlords require evidence of any reported ASB to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to the reported behaviour. Without evidence, it is limited in the actions it can take.

39.        The resident did not provide the landlord permission to talk to her neighbour. This meant the landlord was unable to complete any actions it typically would in such cases including discussing the reports with the neighbour or issuing a warning notice. It was reasonable that the landlord discussed rehousing options as an alternative.

40.        On 30 August 2023, the resident reported the smell of cannabis from the flat below, which she said impacted her health. Again, the resident did not want the landlord to discuss the issue with her neighbour, so it sent a letter to the whole block about smoking. This was appropriate action considering the resident’s request about how to handle the issue.

41.        The resident reported on 21 June 2024 that the neighbour’s behaviour was impacting her. In its stage 1 response on 4 July 2024, the landlord said that it required consent from the resident to talk to her neighbour to further investigate the matter. It added the police had recorded the incident as a neighbour dispute, not a crime. It offered mediation and told the resident to report any further issues. The resident accepted the offer for mediation on 13 August 2024, but the neighbour had declined. The landlord is unable to force either party to engage in mediation, so it was unable to proceed. This was outside of its control.

42.        In its final response, the landlord said it had insufficient evidence to issue a warning to the resident’s neighbour. This was a reasonable conclusion as the resident had only provided evidence of 1 incident and the police had determined it was a neighbour dispute. While it is recognised it caused the resident distress, there is no evidence of a pattern of behaviour that would indicate ongoing ASB. It would therefore not be proportionate to take further action. It was reasonable that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations about the limitations on the actions it could take and the steps she should take if any further incidents occurred. 

43.        Overall, the landlord appropriately handled the resident’s reports of ASB and respected the resident’s request on how it should manage her reports. There is no evidence of a failing by the landlord.

Request to be rehoused

44.        It is understood that the resident’s main reason for requesting a property move is due to the ongoing repair issues in the property. The landlord is obliged to complete the repairs, rather than move the resident. Its handling of the repairs has been assessed separately under the corresponding complaint sections.

45.        The landlord reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding her request to be moved. In all the complaint responses it consistently explained that the resident was adequately housed in accordance with its allocations policy. It explained she could bid on over 55s or sheltered accommodation properties, but it may be a long time before she was offered a property due to housing shortages. It also summarised her latest bids and her queue position and provided information on alternative rehousing options in each response.

46.        The landlord reasonably handled the resident’s request to be rehoused. The resident told the Service she has since moved to a new property.

Determination

47.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water pressure issues.

48.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the noisy pipework.

49.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. 

50.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

51.        The landlord should pay the resident:

1. £300 compensation for the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of water pressure issues.
2. £300 compensation for the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of the noisy pipework.

52.        The landlord should provide evidence to the Service of the total payment of £600 within 4 weeks of the date of this report.