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

London Borough of Lewisham (202217704)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217704

Lewisham Council

28 May 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. Roof and loft repairs.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat on the top floor of a small block. The resident’s lease commenced in January 2020. The resident occupies the property with his partner and two young children.
  2. On 12 August 2022 the resident reported a hole in the roof. The landlord’s contractor inspected the property on 16 August 2022 and considered scaffolding would be needed to carry out the repair. The resident chased for an update on 31 August 2022.
  3. On 8 September 2022 the resident made a formal complaint. He said he heard scratching and biting noises in the loft space which he attributed to animals. He said that having inspected the loft space himself he found multiple holes in the roof tiles and the roofing membrane. The resident was concerned about potential further damage to his property and to the building. He wanted the roof tiles and roofing membrane repaired.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 September 2022. It apologised for the delay in commencing works. It also said its contractor attended on 16 August 2022 and recommended works that required scaffolding. It would ensure works commenced as soon as possible.
  5. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 7 November 2022. He said that, despite chasing for updates, the landlord ignored him repeatedly. He said there was a hole in the roof and exposed live wires in the loft caused by animals biting cables. He added there was damage to insulation, and dead squirrels causing smells and maggots in his property. The resident wanted the maggots dealt with immediately.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 December 2022. It said works were now authorised for its contractor to carry out roof repair works, and they would also check the roofing membrane. It also raised a work order for the exposed electrical wires to be attended the following day. It added its roof contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment but, due to the festive season, this may be delayed until early January 2023.
  7. The external roof repairs were completed in early 2023. On 9 August 2023 the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 3. He said that although he made repeated attempts to resolve this issue, his emails were ignored. He said the matter was not fully resolved and set out a list of outstanding issues including the roofing membrane and damage to an external diffuser grille. As an outcome, the resident wanted the outstanding works completed and reimbursement for his pest control costs.
  8. The landlord’s independent adjudicator issued their stage 3 response on 5 September 2023. They upheld the complaint and recommended the landlord apologise for the delay and provide a clear and detailed timescale for carrying out the work. They also recommended it confirm the timescale for repairing the external diffuser grille which was damaged by its scaffolding contractor. They said the landlord should pay £250 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused by the delay. They added that the pest control costs were best dealt with by the landlord’s insurer.
  9. In the resident’s referral to the Ombudsman, he said the landlord failed to keep to its stage 3 recommendations despite repeated contact with the landlord. He explained the roofing membrane and diffuser grille remained outstanding, and he felt the electrical repairs carried out in the loft had been a temporary fix. As a resolution, he wanted the outstanding repairs completed, further compensation and reimbursement for pest control costs.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint to us, he said that he reported a roof issue to the landlord in 2018. While this may be the case, we think it would have been reasonable for the resident to have pursued this report at that time if he was unhappy with how the landlord responded to him, and the action (or lack of action) it took. The length of time that has since passed without the resident doing so would impact the Ombudsman’s ability to reliably assess the events in this case. This is because as time goes on, memories fade, it is difficult to verify accounts, and records are erased. Accordingly, this report will focus on the relevant events from the resident’s reports in August 2022 of a hole in the roof to the landlord’s final response of September 2023 and any commitments it made.

The landlord’s handling of roof and loft repairs

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must maintain the structure and exterior of a property. The resident’s lease sets out that the landlord is responsible for the roof and every part of the building above the level of the top floor ceiling. In this case, there was no dispute that the landlord is responsible for the roof tiles and the roofing membrane.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy dated January 2024 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”.
  3. This repairs policy also sets out the types of repairs and its timescales for responding. Emergency repairs include those that remove immediate danger to people and avoid major damage to the property and should be responded to within 24 hours. Urgent repairs, those which prevent damage to the property, or where there is a possible health and safety risk, should be completed in 3 working days. Routine repairs, those which do not fall into emergency or urgent categories, should be completed in 20 working days. The policy adds that where it is unable to complete a repair on a single visit, or within its expected timeframe, it will proactively keep the resident updated with progress including arrangements for further visits. The Ombudsman recognises that this policy was not available at the time of the resident’s initial report but is referred to as a sensible guide.
  4. Following the resident’s initial report of 12 August 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended in good time on 16 August 2022. It said fixed scaffolding would be needed in two locations to complete follow on works. From the landlord’s records, it appears the follow-on works were scheduled for 19 August 2022; however, this did not happen and there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident after its contractor’s attendance in August 2022. This led to the resident chasing for updates and making a formal complaint in September 2022 which took him time and trouble.
  5. Subsequently, the landlord raised a work order on 16 September 2022 to “make good hole in roof”. It appeared the landlord only raised this work order following the resident’s formal complaint. This is concerning as the previous work order for the same issue was raised on 12 August 2022 which may suggest the landlord did not have proper oversight of its repairs.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 23 September 2022, it acted fairly by apologising for the delay arising from the works not being approved. It also chased the repair with its contractor the same day. However, we have seen that its contractor stated to the landlord that large numbers of variation orders were not being approved in good time by the landlord which caused delays in progressing work. The contractor added that residents were chasing them and they were unable to get clear answers from the landlord despite having provided all the relevant information. The contractor also noted it had scaffolding up but not full authorisation to carry out works.
  7. This should have alerted the landlord to re-examine the relevant work orders, provide appropriate approvals, and authorise the works. However, the landlord’s contractor confirmed on both 4 October and 24 October 2022 that it had not heard back from the landlord about the works. By not approving the works sooner and despite several emails from its contractor and the resident, the landlord missed a number of opportunities to progress the works sooner. This avoidable delay meant the resident was left with a hole in the roof and squirrels accessing the loft space. The resident may have felt that the onus was being put on him to chase up works. In his escalation request, he stated he was concerned about hygiene issues and reported deceased squirrels and maggots. Had the landlord acted sooner, it was likely some of the pest control issues could have been prevented.
  8. In December 2022, the resident complained to his MP as he had not heard back regarding his stage 2 complaint. He explained there were exposed cables in the loft which he believed had been caused by squirrels biting them and he was concerned about potential health and safely implications. He had mentioned this in his escalation request of 7 November 2022. On 20 December 2022, the same day as its stage 2 response, the landlord raised a work order to check exposed wires in the loft which it attended the following day. However, the landlord should have raised an appropriate work order much sooner, in November 2022.
  9. Following the landlord’s attendance on 21 December 2022, the resident did not raise any concerns with the landlord about the electrics or any related impact on his living conditions but contacted the Ombudsman in August 2024 and January 2025 about this. He said to us that the electrical cables in the loft had only been repaired by terminal blocks and insulation tape which he considered a temporary fix, and added that his fire alarm was not working due to the damage. The resident disputed that an effective, lasting repair was carried out. In view of this, a recommendation has been made.
  10. Work was completed to the external roof around 17 January 2023. This was over 5 months after the initial report. With regard to the roofing membrane, the Ombudsman notes that, in the landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 December 2022, it stated that when the contractor attended to replace the roof tiles, it would also check the roofing membrane. On 17 January 2023 the resident specifically queried when he would need to give access to the loft to the landlord’s builders so that they could repair the roofing membrane. In response, the landlord said it had contacted its contractor but received no answer. The resident continued to chase multiple times across May and June 2023. This caused frustration and further distress to the resident who felt that the landlord was ignoring the issue.
  11. On 3 August 2023 the landlord advised the resident’s MP that its roofing team had arranged a post-inspection of the works to take place on 7 August 2023, and that any necessary remedial works would be picked up following the inspection. However, we have not seen this post-inspection report nor if any follow on remedial work was completed. Indeed, on 8 and 9 August 2023 the resident continued to explain as part of his stage 3 escalation request that the roofing membrane was outstanding. At this point, or as part of its final response, the landlord should have offered an explanation about the roofing membrane, particularly as the resident had reported holes in it in his initial complaint of September 2022, and submitted a video to the landlord which clearly shows holes in it.
  12. The landlord did email the resident on 19 August 2024 querying if he was experiencing any issues relating to the roof repair that had been carried out, but it appears that this email was prompted by the Ombudsman contacting the landlord asking it for information. The resident did not reply directly to the landlord’s email, likely because he had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, but he continued to complain to the Ombudsman in September 2024 and January 2025 about the holes in the roofing membrane and the damaged diffuser grille.
  13. As regards the external diffuser grille, this likely did not affect the resident’s occupation of his home and appeared only to affect the aesthetic of the estate/block. However, the landlord should have repaired this as it was damaged by its scaffolders, and it raised an expectation for the resident in its final response that it would be repaired. The landlord has confirmed this is still outstanding to date and that the last attendance was in early March 2024 when they established it was too high to work on safely from a ladder. We have considered this as part of our orders.
  14. Overall, the landlord’s delays were extensive and unreasonable. The time taken to complete the repairs falls considerably outside the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It did not appear to follow matters up after it completed the external roof work in January 2023 and missed a number of opportunities to resolve the roofing membrane and other repairs at an earlier date. Had the landlord fixed the roofing membrane much sooner, this may have avoided stress and inconvenience for the resident. Alternatively, if the landlord considered that repairs to the roofing membrane were not required, it should have communicated this to the resident at the earliest opportunity. From the evidence provided, the landlord did not respond to his concerns, and the resident has confirmed that the roofing membrane work remains outstanding to date.
  15. These delays have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, who went to more time and trouble to progress matters than would routinely be needed when making a complaint. His communications were often not responded to, and when the landlord did respond, it was rarely substantive. This was likely to have caused further distress and inconvenience.
  16. While the landlord acknowledged some of its failings and attempted to put things right, it failed to complete all necessary follow up works. However, the adverse effect on the household was likely minimal. The landlord had carried out external roof work, thus preventing further access by pests. Nevertheless, the resident was still concerned about potential water ingress/weatherproof issues due to the holes in the roofing membrane, and the landlord failed to respond to his concerns about this.
  17. In the stage 3 response of September 2023 issued by the independent adjudicator, it recommended apologising for the delay and offering £250 compensation in recognition of inconvenience and distress. It also recommended providing “a clear and detailed timescale for carrying out the work”, but we have not seen any correspondence since that date from the landlord to the resident that sets out a detailed timescale for carrying out the outstanding work, nor any work orders raised.
  18. The recommended compensation offer of £250 in September 2023 was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report and has yet to be paid. Our remedies guidance suggests awards from £600 where there was a failure that significantly affected the resident. Orders have been made below which take into account the severity of the issue and the length of time the resident was impacted, resulting in avoidable distress.
  19. In response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for pest control costs, the landlord’s independent adjudicator advised in its final response that this was best dealt with via the landlord’s insurer. While we recognise the resident told us he did not pursue this avenue, the landlord acted appropriately by signposting him to its own insurer.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaints process:
    1. Stage 1 – where a written response will be issued within 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 – where a written response will be issued within 20 working days.
    3. Stage 3 – where the complaint is seen by an independent adjudicator and a written response will be issued within 20 working days.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code advises that ‘two stage complaint procedures are ideal. This ensures that the complaint process is not unduly long’. The landlord’s three stage complaints process would have meant that the resident had to wait at least a further 20 working days before he was able to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy and from 1 February 2024 no longer uses three stages. However, in 2023, stage 3 was a mandatory part of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 8 September 2022. The landlord acted fairly by issuing its stage 1 response within 10 working days. On 7 November 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and also expressed further dissatisfaction to the landlord about its handling of the matter, asking to escalate the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint the next day and promised a formal response by 6 December 2022, but it failed to honour this commitment.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 December 2022, 30 working days after the escalation request. This was outside its policy timescales, and the resident chased a number of times and also approached his MP for assistance which necessitated time and trouble. The landlord did not inform him of the reasons for the delay and the extended timescale. This was a minor failing and of short duration which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Nevertheless, the landlord’s failure to act within its policy timescale would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who may have felt that his concerns were being ignored.
  5. While the external roof works were completed in January 2023, the resident continued to chase between May and August 2023 regarding the roofing membrane, pest control costs and diffuser grille. Specifically, in May 2023 the resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the landlord stating that he was “ignored” and subject to a “disgraceful service”. He also explained works remained outstanding. Given these comments, the landlord should have considered escalating his complaint to stage 3. However, it only did so after the resident’s 9 August 2023 correspondence. While the landlord issued its stage 3 final response within 20 working days of this, it should have escalated the matter sooner. By not doing so, the resident was delayed in receiving a final response.
  6. Overall, there were avoidable delays at stage 2 with inadequate communication with the resident to manage his expectations, and it did not escalate the complaint to stage 3 sooner. These complaint handling failures, while minor, would have likely undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord to satisfactorily resolve matters for him. The landlord did not recognise these in its stage 2 or 3 responses, nor did it offer an apology or compensation which would have been appropriate in the circumstances. An order has been made below. 

Conclusions

  1. In this investigation, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and complaint handling, similar to other landlord 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.
  2. Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into Lewisham Council. 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 actions needed following the completion of the special investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of roof and loft repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendation

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 £900 made up of:
      1. £250 as offered in its stage 3 response, if it has not done so already.
      2. A further £550 for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of reports of roof and loft repairs.
      3. £100 for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. Within 56 calendar days of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Conduct a survey of the loft including the roofing membrane.
    2. Complete any outstanding recommended work as identified in stage 3, if it has not done so already.
    3. Endeavour to complete any works to the roofing membrane and external diffuser grille, using a different approach if it cannot safely use a ladder to repair this. It must liaise with us ahead of the relevant deadline if, for any reason, the deadline is unmanageable.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman within the relevant timescales above to confirm that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should inspect the electrical cables in the loft space and ensure it is safe and fit for purpose and confirm this in writing to the resident. It should also ensure that the fire alarm in the property is working. If further works are identified, it must carry these out promptly.