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

London Borough of Lewisham (202321029)

Back to Top

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321029

Lewisham Council

24 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a burst stack pipe.
    2. Request for reimbursement for replacement carpet.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a lower-ground floor flat within a three-storey house. The landlord is the freeholder of the building and has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident is being supported by his son in the pursual of his complaint. For the purposes of this report, both individuals are referred to as the resident.
  3. An issue with the stack pipe at the resident’s property was first reported in 2022. The landlord’s repair records show that an emergency job was raised on 23 November 2022 as the “ground floor pipe burst, and sewage [was] seeping into [the resident’s] flat”. It appears that this went unaddressed until a further job was raised on 16 March 2023 as the leak remained ongoing. Between 16-21 March 2023 there were several jobs raised and a subsequent inspection on 24 March 2023. A job was raised on the same day to repair the broken stack pipe which the landlord’s records suggest was completed on 14 April 2023.
  4. On 24 April 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He stated that the burst stack pipe had caused damage to his carpet and that mushrooms had begun to grow within the property which affected the quality of the air. The resident noted he was concerned about the impact on his health because he had recently had lung surgery. The resident requested that the landlord replace the carpet. The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 May 2023 and advised that he had not received a response to his initial complaint.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 May 2023. It stated that the leak was reported in November 2022 and was resolved by its contractor on 5 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in resolving the leak and attributed this to miscommunications with its contractor. It stated that it was not responsible for any internal repairs or damaged items inside the resident’s home as he is a leaseholder. The landlord provided the insurers details to enable the resident to make a claim for the damaged carpet. 
  6. On 30 May 2023 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. He stated that the leak was not his fault and that he did not want to pursue the matter through his own insurance. The resident stated that he was informed by the landlord’s contractor that it was responsible for the damage.
  7. The resident noted his son had supported his complaint from August 2022 due to his ill health. He stated that he had made a claim through his own housing insurance in August 2022 for the leak, and that he replaced the carpets in September 2022. The resident alleged that the cause of the leak was the decay of cement the landlord had previously put around the stack pipe. The resident confirmed that the leak had now been resolved and sought reimbursement for the carpet and for replacement footwear which had also been damaged. 
  8. On 15 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged the resident’s report of damaged carpet and maintained that the resident was responsible for any internal repairs as the leaseholder and offered £500 compensation for the delay in responding to the leak.
  9. On 28 June 2023 the resident noted he was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response. He reiterated that the landlord was at fault for the leak and asked what evidence he could provide to support his complaint. The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 August 2023 as he had not received a response.
  10. On 30 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 3 response and reiterated that the resident should pursue the complaint through the insurance route. The landlord signposted the resident to the insurance claim form which it had previously provided in its initial complaint response.
  11. On 18 September 2023 the resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident has advised this service that he is seeking reimbursement for the replacement of his carpet.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a burst stack pipe.

  1. The evidence provided indicates that the resident initially reported a problem with the stack pipe in October 2022. Although the landlord has shared no record of the report, it did confirm this in its stage two response to the resident. The absence of an appropriate record has meant that this service is unable to establish the nature of this report, and therefore whether it should have been dealt with as an emergency.
  2. The Ombudsman can see, nonetheless, that an emergency job was raised on 23 November 2022. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine what prompted the emergency job (as this service has seen no reports from the resident in November 2022) but it appears that the landlord attended the resident’s property to address this on the same day. This was reasonable. The landlord’s repair policy states that an emergency call-out will be attended within 24 hours and that it will make the situation safe and carry out any follow-up work as an urgent or routine repair in normal working hours. While it can be inferred that the operative did make the property safe at this time, this Service is unable to see that any follow-up actions were noted for urgent or routine repair.
  3. The policy also outlines the response times for urgent and routine repairs to be completed within 3 and 20 working days respectively. It is unclear how the landlord categorised this work, however it is clear both timeframes were exceeded. It was not until March 2023 that a further job was raised to address the burst stack pipe and records suggest that it was not completed until April 2023. This was almost 5 months after the emergency job had been raised.
  4. The Ombudsman also would have expected the landlord to have communicated with the resident throughout this period to keep her informed on when it intended to complete the works. The landlord has provided no evidence, however, that it managed the resident’s expectations between October 2022 and April 2023. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it took the resident’s reports seriously or effectively managing the repair. This inevitably resulted in the resident feeling distressed and inconvenienced.
  5. The landlord did acknowledge and apologise for failing to arrange a follow up appointment for a drainage specialist to attend the resident’s property following its initial assessment of the leak. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it went further and made a compensation offer of £500 in recognition of the delays in repairing the leak. The landlord’s compensation policy guideline outlines a compensation offer between £251-£1,000 can be made to a resident where they have suffered inconvenience because of a repeat service failure. In the Ombudsman’s view, this offer was reasonable because it was reflective of the extent of the delay and the impact caused to the resident. The landlord’s offer is also in line with the award this Service would look to make in these circumstances.
  6. On this basis, the Ombudsman has determined that a reasonable level of redress was awarded to recognise the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a burst stack pipe. This determination is made on the understanding that the landlord pays the resident the amount promised within 4 weeks of this report, if it has not already.

The landlord’s response to the request for reimbursement for replacement carpet.

  1. When the resident requested details on how he could recover the costs of the replacement carpet the landlord advised the resident that because he is a leaseholder, it cannot take responsibility for any damaged items within the home. The landlord advised the resident that he could claim against his home insurance. Alternatively, the resident was advised that he could make a claim against the landlord’s insurer, and an insurance claim form was provided alongside the stage 1 response.
  2. This Service considers it good practice for a landlord to clearly explain to a resident whether the damage to their property can be considered through its complaint’s procedure and if not, to provide details of the appropriate avenue to seek redress. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident of his responsibilities as a leaseholder and advised of the avenues of which he could pursue this element of his complaint. It has therefore been concluded that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy that was in place at the time of the complaint outlines that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days.  It will acknowledge stage 3 complaints within 2 working days and provide a response within 20 working days. 
  3. The resident first complained on 24 April 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it 14 working days later on 16 May 2023. This was outside of the landlord’s timeframes for complaint acknowledgement. The landlord’s response was provided on 25 May 2023, this was 8 working was after the complaint was acknowledged.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint after 9 working days of receiving his escalation, this was outside of its timeframes. It responded 4 working days after its acknowledgement.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 28 June 2023 and the landlord provided its response after 45 working days. The landlord had not acknowledged the resident’s desire to move the complaint to stage 3, nor did they respond within the appropriate timeframes.
  6. The landlord accepted it had not met its advertised timeframes in acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints and apologised to the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay that was also experienced by the resident at stage 3 which was inappropriate.
  7. Finally, the landlord failed to outline its understanding of the resident’s complaint in full by omitting the resident’s vulnerability and his request to provide supporting evidence. The landlord was put on notice of this vulnerability after the works had been carried out and so the Ombudsman accepts that it could not have taken this into account then. It would have been reasonable, however, for it to have acknowledged the impact on the resident in its complaint responses.
  8. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling because there were delays in its complaint process and the resident’s complaint was not fully considered. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. The Ombudsman awards £100 compensation to the resident to reflect the service failure identified. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to the response to the resident’s reports of a burst stack pipe, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a request for reimbursement for replacement carpet.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £100 in recognition of the complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £500 it offered in its stage 2 response for the delay in resolving the leak if it has not done so already.