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

Lewisham Council (202342342)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342342

Lewisham Council

17 February 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 reports of leaks, flooding and associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She occupies a three-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a block with her two sons. The resident has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and both her sons have asthma.
  2. On 28 July 2023 the resident reported leaks from under the hallway. The landlord raised an appointment for 23 August 2023, but its contractor did not attend. Later in August 2023, a plumber attended. They could not resolve the leak and advised a multi-skilled operative was needed. An appointment was arranged for this on 15 September 2023. The resident said she was not informed about this, and the landlord rearranged the appointment for 9 November 2023.
  3. On 15 September 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said its operatives missed appointments, and although a plumber attended, they did not resolve the leak. She felt the scheduled appointment for 9 November 2023 was too far away and the issue was ongoing causing damage to the property. She added she had contacted the landlord numerous times but to no avail. On 25 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and apologised that the leak remained unresolved and that it did not inform her of repair appointments. It said it brought forward the appointment scheduled for November to 4 October 2023.
  4. On 13 October 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said appointments had been cancelled and rebooked a number of times. She was frustrated as the leak remained unresolved and was causing mould and reiterated there was damage to the property. She stated new flooring and redecoration were needed. On 10 November 2023 the leak progressed to an uncontainable flood which the landlord attended to within 24 hours and turned the water off to the property. On 14 November 2023 the household was temporarily moved to a hotel.
  5. On 15 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint, apologising that the leak was unresolved. It set out a timeline of events noting that its operative who attended on 13 November 2023 was unable to trace the leak. They did, however, suspect a leak under the shower tray or within the concrete flooring. The landlord asked another contractor to remedy the leak and for them to contact the resident by 17 November 2023. It apologised for the handling of the appointments and accepted its poor level of customer service added to the distress and frustration. The landlord said that once it received confirmation that the leak was resolved, it would arrange remedial repairs to address damp and mould and other damage caused. It offered £300 for undue delays, missed appointments and the distress and inconvenience.
  6. On 17 November 2023 the landlord’s contractor resolved the leak. On 27 November 2023 the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 3. She said that although the leak had been resolved, she remained unhappy with how the landlord handled the matter, particularly as the household was left with no access to water for a whole weekend. She said the household’s stay in the hotel was extended until 1 December 2023 and felt that the uncertainty around moving back, along with the landlord’s communication which she considered unacceptable, caused further distress.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 3 final response on 4 December 2023. It said the leak reported on 28 July 2023 did not meet the threshold for an emergency response; however, it acknowledged it should have responded within 20 working days. It confirmed the leak had been fixed on 17 November 2023 and that the work to reinstate the shower room would commence in December 2023. It recognised that its stage 2 response made no reference to the serious flood on 10 November 2023 and that this could have been prevented had the landlord acted sooner. It noted that the flooring and décor had been damaged by the leak and that the removal of flooring revealed possible asbestos. It also noted the landlord should have promptly transferred the household to emergency accommodation, but it failed to do so. The landlord recognised the inconvenience of living in a hotel for around 3 weeks the disruption caused. It offered a further £250 compensation, recommended the resident make an insurance claim and made a series of repair commitments including making safe the hallway floor.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2024. She remained unhappy as the hallway flooring was still unsafe and the landlord did not respond to further communication regarding outstanding works. As a resolution, she wanted the hallway flooring made safe, and redecoration to the hallway and living room or for the landlord to reimburse her for carrying out the redecoration herself. She also wanted further compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the situation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. On 10 January 2025 the resident advised this service the household experienced a separate leak from the bathroom, and the boiler stopped working leaving them without heating and hot water. The landlord advised that an appointment was scheduled for 6 February 2025 with a gas contractor and brick worker as the leak could possibly be from an underground pipe. This report will not seek to investigate this issue as, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, flooding and associated repairs

  1. The landlord has an obligation under the tenancy agreement to maintain the outside and structure of the property, which includes all installations for the supply of water. Additionally, under Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must ensure that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it “would adopt a ‘right first-time’ approach, where we proactively manage repairs, and the resident does not have to chase works”. It added that if it needed “to carry out an inspection before ordering a repair, we will be clear that this is the reason for the visit, and will arrange any follow on works promptly. Where works cannot be completed in a single visit, we will proactively schedule appointments for follow up visits and keep the resident informed”. The landlord’s repairs guide sets out that minor and major leaks are its responsibility and considers non-containable and serious plumbing leaks, where there is an immediate danger to people or of flooding or major damage to the property, to be emergencies. It will attend to urgent repairs, those which prevent damage to the property, or where there is a possible health and safety risk, within 3 working days. Non-urgent repairs such as containable leaks where they do not cause serious damage or a safety risk will be attended to within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s damp, mould and leaks policy dated January 2024 outlines that it will treat all reports of leaks, damp, and mould seriously and will take a solution-focused, holistic approach whenever it can, which puts the resident, not just the property, at the centre of the resolution. It adds it will communicate clearly and keep residents informed of what action it will take, why it is taking it and when it will do this. Where it is unable to take immediate action, it may offer an interim solution and support to limit the impact. The Ombudsman recognises that this policy was not available at the time of the resident’s initial report but is referenced to as a sensible guide.
  4. The resident initially reported a leak on 28 July 2023. While it is unclear what was the extent of the leak at this time, she said she was unable to trace the source and therefore was unable to contain it. As this was likely an uncontainable leak, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to treat this as an urgent repair. However, there is no evidence that it did so. This was inappropriate.
  5. Following the resident’s report, there were missed appointments and an unarranged appointment which the landlord noted as no access. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it would bring forward the 9 November 2023 appointment to 4 October 2023. However, this appointment was subsequently cancelled and rescheduled for 19 October 2023. From the evidence, it is unclear why the landlord cancelled this appointment. In any case, this caused a further delay resulting in added distress to the resident who felt the landlord was taking ineffective action to resolve the matter.
  6. Despite numerous contractor attendances between August and October 2023, the landlord did not establish the source of the leak until mid-November 2023, almost 3 months after it was reported. This is very concerning, particularly as the initial leak turned into an uncontainable flood on 10 November 2023 which required an emergency response. It is reasonable to conclude that had the landlord acted sooner and promptly identified the source of the leak, the flooding may have been prevented. 
  7. The landlord acted fairly by attending to the uncontainable flood within 24 hours and turning off the water on 11 November 2023. Although the landlord attended within its emergency timescales, it failed to consider whether an emergency decant was required there and then. Instead, it did not decant the resident until 14 November 2023, over 2 days later. This was inappropriate and caused yet further distress to the household who were without access to water for at least 2 days.
  8. Another contractor subsequently attended the property on 17 November 2023 and pulled up part of the flooring by the front entrance door. They found a large amount of water present and also found leaks under the shower tray, which they fixed. The same day the water supply was reinstated. While the landlord acted appropriately by resolving the leaks, it failed to do so within its repairs policy timescales. Indeed, it took the landlord almost 4 months to resolve the leak despite the resident making concerted efforts to progress the repair.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it committed to carrying out remedial repairs to address the damp and mould and other damage caused by the leak. In the landlord’s stage 3 response, it committed to making safe the hallway floor, undertaking an asbestos investigation, restoring the bathroom to a usable state and carrying out inspection of the property to establish remedial works. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to confirm that these commitments have been undertaken by the landlord and appear outstanding to date, even more than 1 year after its final response.
  10. The Ombudsman has seen an internal landlord note which indicates that after the insurance claim, the resident may complete reflooring. In any case, the landlord pulled up the flooring by the front entrance door to fix the leak. It should then have undertaken the asbestos survey and made safe the hallway flooring shortly after the leak was resolved as promised. By not doing so, the landlord left the household with a large gap by the front entrance door which exposed pipes and presented a trip hazard, and it is very concerning this still remains outstanding over 1 year later.
  11. As regards the insurance claim, the landlord’s stage 3 response recommended the resident make a claim against its insurer for damage to belongings and redecoration, such as flooring and wallpaper, and it promised to provide information promptly to its insurer when asked and would not oppose a reasonable claim. The resident has not yet made a claim and said she did not know how to go about it. The landlord also confirmed that no claim was submitted. In view of this, a recommendation has been made below.
  12. Regarding the damp and mould, the landlord attended the property a number of times between August and December 2023 and was therefore aware of the extent of mould at the time. Indeed, in the resident’s stage 2 escalation request of October 2023 she advised the leak had caused mould affecting wallpaper and painting. Our Spotlight report entitled “Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle”, outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’.
  13. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that shows the landlord provided a dehumidifier to the property on 7 September 2023, before the leak was resolved. However, after resolving the leak, it should have promptly undertaken a damp and mould inspection and considered if any remedial works were needed, particularly given its commitment in its stage 2 response. This did not happen and the landlord’s inaction likely had an adverse impact on the living conditions in the property. This impact was likely of more significance given the physical health of the members of the household. It is noted that the landlord was aware in late November 2023 that the resident has COPD and her sons have asthma. The landlord confirmed in February 2025 that there were no inspections regarding damp and mould. In this regard, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its commitment in its stage 2 response.
  14. The landlord did not appear to offer to reimburse the resident for any increased electricity costs for use of the dehumidifier it provided in September 2023. Indeed, an internal landlord note indicates the resident had had the dehumidifier running hence “drain electricity”. In the circumstances, the landlord should have reached out to the resident and asked for copies of her utility bills to review. This would have been a suitable approach in accordance with its compensation policy which states the landlord should consider reimbursing residents where an incident has resulted in their incurring an additional expense such as electricity usage. In view of this, a further recommendation is made below.
  15. Overall, the landlord failed to undertake the necessary works within a reasonable time and did not promptly decant the resident when there was flooding and no access to water. While the landlord recognised the delays in completing repairs, apologised and made an offer of compensation, there is no evidence that the landlord learned from outcomes despite its assurances in its stage 3 response that it would implement an effective system to ensure work recommended is completed promptly. It is noted that remedial works remain outstanding to date, well over 1 year after its final response. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation from £600 should be considered where there has been a failure that significantly affected the household. Noting the impact this has had on the living conditions in the property, the time and effort spent pursuing the matter, and the landlord’s compensation award, the Ombudsman has made several orders below.
  16. In this investigation, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of its repairs, similar to those identified in other cases. 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 with which the landlord has now complied. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this service following the wider order, and we will monitor its progress in doing so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, flooding and associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,000 made up of:
      1. £300 as offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already.
      2. £250 offered in its stage 3 response, if it has not done so already.
      3. A further £450 for the failing to undertake actions set out and committed to in its formal responses. 
    3. Inspect the property and satisfy itself that it has carried out sufficient repairs as set out in its stage 2 and 3 responses including an asbestos survey, making safe hallway flooring and any damp and mould remedial works, if it has not done so already. The landlord must share the inspection report with the resident and Ombudsman including any works it identified and provide anticipated timescales to resolve these.
  2. The landlord shall provide evidence to the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Contact the resident requesting evidence of any increased utility bills arising from use of the dehumidifier it provided and consider appropriate reimbursement.
    2. Assess any damage to the resident’s belongings and décor caused by the leak, damp and mould, and write to the resident explaining whether it is willing to reimburse her for any costs incurred or, if not, its reason for declining to do so and how she can pursue an insurance claim, and address promptly any queries she has about making a claim.
  2. The landlord should confirm to this service its intentions in regard to these recommendations within 28 calendar days of the date of this report.