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

London Borough of Lewisham (202328037)

Back to Top

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328037

Lewisham Council

17 April 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. Reports of an overflowing external drain.
    2. Reports of a leak.
    3. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The resident has health conditions including short bowel syndrome and had major operations in the last 2 years. She also experiences anxiety and depression.
  2. In March 2022 the resident reported a leak from a stack pipe affecting her home. The next day the landlord’s contractor carried out a CCTV survey to the stack pipe and subsequently, in June 2022, descaling works took place. In September 2022, following an insurance claim, decorating works commenced. However, the resident said a further leak was found from the rainwater downpipe and a leak detection survey took place in March 2023 which found no active leak but suspected there was an issue with a rainwater downpipe in the wall cavity of the resident’s property. Previously, on 6 March 2023, the resident reported a blockage concerning an external drain overflowing outside the front of her home.
  3. On 24 April 2023 the resident reported a blocked downpipe affecting her flat and the landlord’s plumber attended the same day. The next day she made a formal complaint about an external drain which bubbled and overflowed onto the estate near her front entrance door. She added this had been an ongoing problem for years but never fixed. She added the drain cover had not been put back on and she kept having to report issues to the landlord. She wanted the blockage diagnosed with a CCTV survey and a jet wash to ensure no further issues, as well as clearing up any debris.
  4. On 26 April 2023, the resident made another formal complaint about the repair of a blocked rainwater downpipe. She said she reported 2 leaks in the last year from a property above, and a defective stack pipe. She explained she made an insurance claim for internal damage from a previous leak but during the works there was a new leak from a communal downpipe. She was unhappy the landlord did not attend this as an emergency repair and was concerned about the risk of flooding. As an outcome she wanted the matter resolved before the leak escalated, and damp and damage to flooring and walls also sorted, or the landlord to compensate her to fix it herself.
  5. On 17 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised that the resident was left worrying about potential flooding to her property. It advised its roofing contractor attended on 4 May 2023 and found a leak on the stack pipe. They sealed around the plug which was defective. They also recommended that a drainage engineer investigate the matter further. Additionally, the landlord apologised that its plumber was incorrectly sent to her property on 16 May 2023, and it said it had re-raised the appointment to its drainage contractor to attend on 19 May 2023.
  6. The resident sent a formal claim form to the landlord’s insurer around 18 May 2023 regarding the April 2023 leak saying that it caused considerable water damage to her kitchen, toilet, bathroom and hallway floor and walls. On 28 May 2023, the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said she had no contact from the landlord regarding her reports of the defective rainwater pipe and the repair was outstanding. The next day she complained again about the external drain outside her property and that it was still overflowing. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to resolve the leak and blocked drain.
  7. On 5 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it understood the repairs to the rainwater pipe remained outstanding despite its contractors having attended on 19 May 2023. The landlord’s leak access team attended on 9 June 2023 and found 2 issues – the blocked drain outside her front entrance door which needed CCTV testing, and damp in the hallway caused by a leak from a defective rainwater pipe. It added tests should also be carried out on the cast iron stack pipe and the resident’s own internal pipework from the wash hand basin and bath to ensure no additional leaks. The landlord added its contractor attended on 26 June 2023 and completed a CCTV survey and left the stack free flowing. It found no further issues. The landlord asked for its contractor to reattend to CCTV survey the external drain as well as further testing of the rainwater pipe and cast-iron stack pipe. It advised its repairs and complaints team would monitor the repair and action any recommendations in a timely manner.
  8. Dissatisfied with this response, on 22 July 2023, the resident complained that no one had surveyed the external drain. She reiterated her complaint on 25 April 2023 and that there was damage to her property and damp in hallway and bathroom walls. She provided a copy of a leak survey from March 2023. She requested a copy of the leak detection report from June 2023 and queried if the property above had been checked. She said the landlord contractor attended on 5 July 2023 without an appointment and that the leak from a faulty pipe was not fixed as they did not have the correct part. She also queried a survey carried out in April 2023 by another contractor which identified no leaks to internal pipework and found a leak from the bung of the rainwater pipe. She wanted compensation for the time taken to resolve this situation, as well as damage to be repaired.
  9. In July 2023 the landlord confirmed the resident had a live insurance claim and it would reply to her directly. The resident advised that the matters had not been resolved to date, stressing the overflowing external drain and the leak in the bathroom were separate incidents and a CCTV survey of the external drain was outstanding. On 28 July 2023, the landlord set out the current status of the claim and apologised for how long it was taking. It advised it could not finalize it until all necessary repairs had been carried out and said it had been assured by the head of repairs team that outstanding work would be followed up that day.
  10. On 3 October 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3. She said the drain outside her home was unresolved and no one had attended to this since April 2023. She added there was an active leak affecting her hallway and bathroom which was also unresolved and had caused considerable damage. She said the last contact she had was with a drainage engineer on 26 June 2023 and an unscheduled visit on 5 July 2023, but they did not have the correct part to fix the leak. She wanted the matters resolved and damage made good as she believed the landlord was liable. The resident advised the landlord both incidents were getting worse and continued to chase on 10 and 29 October 2023.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 3 final response on 6 November 2023. It upheld the complaint and said it had taken too long to identify and rectify the external drain, and a leak inside her home. As the resident was a leaseholder, the landlord set out her options which included applying to court and claiming on the landlord’s insurer for the costs of repairing the damage, which it recognised she had done. It said the court was the proper authority to order works and levels of compensation. It said it would share a schedule of investigations and works committing to expected timescales. It would not oppose the resident’s reasonable insurance claim for internal damage.
  12. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 November 2023. She was unhappy about the landlord’s inaction regarding the drain outside which she said was still overflowing and the reported leak in the access cupboard. She said the leak was active and worse when it rained and there was damage to walls and floors. In late January 2025, the resident advised us that scaffolding was erected and that she was told roof works were needed because a leak from the roof had entered the stairwell.  She felt her leak had been exacerbated by a lack of maintenance of the roof on the landlord’s part and wished to know the condition of the roof. As a resolution, the resident wanted the leak from the rainwater pipe fixed, compensation, and the landlord to assist in initiating an insurance claim. The resident wanted the landlord to consider reimbursing her for the damage caused and an investigation of the damage to the brickwork caused by the overflowing drain.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has seen repair log entries from December 2021 regarding the leak and the resident’s comments that there were longstanding issues with the property. While this may be the case, the Ombudsman has seen that the resident formally complained to the landlord in April 2023. Under paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, we may not consider a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Accordingly, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from around April 2022 up until the landlord’s final response of November 2023 and commitments that it made.
  2. This Service recognises that the resident felt the landlord was responsible for damage caused to her possessions due to its handling of her reports of a leak. As the Ombudsman is unable to establish the cause of any damage with certainty, it would be unfair for us to seek to determine liability. The Ombudsman can, however, consider how the landlord responded to any reports of damage, and whether reasonable steps were taken to enable the resident to pursue reimbursement. The Ombudsman has reviewed whether any distress and inconvenience was considered, and whether the landlord acted appropriately and reasonably in the circumstance. 
  3. Further, the resident explained to the Ombudsman that she was unhappy with a landlord’s plumber’s attendance in November 2024 and a further leak in January 2025. We are sorry to hear this and appreciate the resident’s concerns that these matters may be linked to the April 2023 leak. Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, however, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case, the Service has not reviewed the events that led to the plumber’s attendance or the later leak, as these occurred more than a year after this complaint was exhausted. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, it will need to be raised as a new complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports of an overflowing external drain

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must maintain the structure and exterior of a property. This is also confirmed in the Lewisham Council Leasehold Guide dated December 2024 which states the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the building which includes the foundation, structure and common parts. The Ombudsman recognises that this Guide was not available at the time of the resident’s initial report but is referred to as a sensible guide.
  2. The lease sets out the landlord is responsible for maintaining in good and substantial repair and condition, sewers, drains, gutters, soil waste and other pipes installed in the building or the estate for the purpose of draining any water and soil. This includes the external drainage and communal pipes within the building.
  3. The landlord’s repair guide sets out that the landlord is responsible for major blockages to stacks, surging drains, stacks and repairing gully grids. 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. It aims to complete an emergency repair at the time, if it can, otherwise it would make the situation safe and carry out any follow-up work as an urgent or routine repair. The landlord aims to complete urgent repairs in 3 working days and routine repairs in 20 working days. It adds that where it is unable to complete a repair on a single visit, or within its expected timeframes, it will proactively keep the resident updated with progress including arrangements for further visits.
  4. The resident initially reported the overflowing drain on 6 March 2023.  The landlord’s records indicate an appointment was attended on 24 April 2023, however there was no completion date. As part of the resident’s complaint, she said having contacted the repairs team regarding the outside drain, she was told a workman attended and attributed the issue to fats being poured down the drain. The resident felt this was inadequate and the landlord had not carried out a thorough investigation. The resident also said she had not received any contact from this workman to explain their findings and disputed that a note had been put through her door. The Ombudsman has not seen any records of this appointment from the landlord. If the appointment did take place, this was not within the 20-working day timescale the landlord’s policy suggests.
  5. On 9 June 2023 the landlord’s leak access team confirmed there was a continuous blockage in the drain outside the resident’s front entrance door. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of July 2023, it advised a CCTV survey of the drain was needed to find the cause of the blockage. It was fair for the resident to believe this would take place in a reasonable time. However, this did not happen, and the resident continued to chase on several occasions in July 2023 necessitating time and trouble and causing further distress and frustration. The landlord failed to honour its commitment in its stage 2 response and to date, a CCTV drainage survey of the external drain does not appear to have taken place.
  6. The resident continued to chase this repair again in October 2023. She said no one had attended to investigate the overflowing drain since she reported it. She said matters had worsened and the drain was overflowing onto the pathway which became stained. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said it was an eyesore. 
  7. The landlord acted fairly by recognising that it had taken too long to sort the overflowing drain. While the landlord said it would share “a schedule of investigations and works, with expected timescales” and committed to put this matter right, we have not seen that this happened. Additionally, it did not offer compensation to reflect the distress she experienced of the repair remaining outstanding since her report of March 2023 which would have been appropriate.
  8. We have seen the landlord’s contractor attended on 11 December 2023 to undertake high water pressure jetting of the drain to clear the blockage. They reported it was running freely and was tested afterwards. While this was appropriate, the landlord did not take such action until approximately 9 months after it was reported. This was considerably outside its repair policy timescales.
  9. The landlord’s repair logs show a work order was raised on 4 December 2023. While its attendance on 11 December 2023 likely related to this work order, the job shows as completed on 2 July 2024. We have seen no correspondence or evidence relating to any events that took place in July 2024. This suggests a potential issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
  10. In late 2024, the resident advised us the drain continued to overflow. She said she had contacted the landlord about this, but it did not get back to her. We have not seen evidence that the resident reported any further concerns about the external drain to the landlord after December 2023. We are therefore unable to establish whether the landlord should have responded at this time. 
  11. Although the landlord acted fairly by recognizing its error in its handling of the overflowing drain, it did not offer an appropriate remedy given the circumstances. The resident said the matter is unresolved, the cover did not fit back correctly, and staining had been caused to the pathway as well as damage to the outside wall. The landlord only appeared to take meaningful action in December 2023 – some 9 months after her initial report and after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. This was an avoidable delay and there is no indication the landlord updated the resident in the interim. The landlord placed the onus on the resident to chase it about the repair. This was inappropriate and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  12. While we appreciate the distress caused by the situation, we also recognise that the overflowing drain did not affect the resident’s occupation of her home. The resident noted overflowing water and gunge caused staining to the footway and affected the aesthetic of the estate. Despite this, the landlord did not repair it in reasonable time, and the resident spent time and trouble pursuing the matter. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation up to £100 should be considered where there has been a failure that affected the resident, and corresponding orders have been made below.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak

  1. As the landlord is the freeholder with overall responsibility for the block and to protect the interest of its leaseholder, it should respond quickly and ensure where it was responsible for the repair that it resolved this in a timely manner.
  2. 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.
  3. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of reports of damp and mould. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. On 24 April 2023 the resident reported a leak from the rainwater pipe located in her bathroom access cupboard and that she could hear hammering of pipes and swishing of water. She was concerned about the risk of flooding. The landlord’s records show a roofing contractor attended on 27 April 2023 who found the bung in the rainwater pipe was defective and attempted to check the roof but was unable to gain access. They carried out a temporary fix by applying beading around the bung but advised this would need to be replaced to ensure no escape of water and that a drainage contractor was needed to investigate further. There is no evidence to suggest the leak was uncontainable or causing an immediate danger, so the landlord responded in a reasonable timeframe.
  5. The landlord should have promptly re-attended to carry out the follow up work, but its operatives only attended on 19 May 2023 – over 3 weeks later. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who felt the landlord was ignoring her concerns. Additionally, its contractor who found the rubber bung had “failed”, recommended a camera survey to check the drainpipe for leaks. This is concerning as this had already been suggested as a result of the initial attendance on 27 April 2023, and a permanent and lasting repair should have been undertaken shortly after. This did not happen. During this time the leak persisted, and the resident continued to chase on 28 May 2023, explaining that the rainwater pipe had not been fully repaired and recommendations by the landlord’s own contractors had not been followed.
  6. Subsequently on 9 June 2023 the landlord’s leak access team attended to repair the bung, however it is unclear if they did. They did however say further testing was needed to the stack pipe and the resident’s own internal pipework. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its contractor, the resident has provided a survey that showed her internal pipework was satisfactory. This likely caused frustration to the resident. The landlord’s contractor attended again on 26 June 2023 where they completed a CCTV drainage survey and left the stack clear and free flowing. It is unclear why the landlord did not survey the rainwater pipe until late July 2023, and it is unclear what the outcome of this was.
  7. The landlord’s drainage contactor attended on 5 July 2023 when the resident was away and she asserted that they were “astounded” the rainwater pipe had not been repaired, and that he did not have the correct part to fix this but would order it and contact her. The Ombudsman has not seen if this happened to date although a job for the gate valve in the cupboard shows as completed as of 18 August 2023. This is not mentioned in the landlord’s or resident’s correspondence and may again indicate issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
  8. The resident continued to chase between July and November 2023 stating the leak was getting worse with boxing coming away from the bathroom wall and cracking in the flooring. She reiterated that the issue was with a communal rainwater pipe and that the bung fitted on the downpipe was defective. She added an incorrect one was since fitted causing an overflow during heavy rainfall. She added she could hear dripping water inside the access cupboard. This is very concerning. While the landlord raised a number of work orders to resolve the leak in 2023, the resident advised in 2025 that the matter has still not been resolved.
  9. There is no evidence that the landlord considered reimbursing the resident for any increased electricity costs for use of the dehumidifier it provided in June 2023. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to 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 recommendation is made below.
  10. We have seen the resident made 3 insurance claims and said this complaint relates to her third, which is corroborated by the landlord. In November 2024, the landlord advised that the insurance team were waiting for confirmation that the problem causing damage to the bathroom had been fixed before a claim could be negotiated. We have seen ample evidence of the resident chasing the landlord’s insurance and repair team, but it appears the issue has not been resolved yet. This is very concerning.
  11. There is no evidence of confirmation by the landlord to either the resident or its insurance team that the issue is resolved. The resident was left with a leak affecting her property for a prolonged period of time. The landlord failed to provide a timely and clear response concerning her requests for reimbursement for damaged possessions and décor, and it is concerning that the landlord did not establish during 2024 what further action it needed to take so that she could progress her claim. This was inappropriate and contrary to its repair policy.
  12. While the landlord upheld the complaint in its final response and recognised it had failed to resolve a leak inside her home, it failed to offer any compensation to reflect the delay and time and trouble expended pursuing the matters. The landlord’s stage 3 response stated that as the resident was a leaseholder she could pursue a claim via court. Nevertheless, it acknowledged that its complaints process, like an insurance claim, was an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. It appears the landlord considered that as the resident had made an insurance claim about the damage caused, compensation would be precluded. This was inappropriate as compensation should be offered where there have been lengthy delays in resolving a matter; the landlord missed an opportunity to offer compensation during its complaints process for the significant delay.
  13. The landlord missed a number of opportunities to resolve this leak at an earlier date and did not appear to follow matters up after its final response. While we have not seen that the resident communicated with the landlord much in 2024, the landlord is expected to carry out an effective, permanent, and lasting repair. There was a lack of proactivity on the part of the landlord after it had been on notice that the issue was unresolved. Had the landlord fixed the underlying issue with the leak much sooner, this may have avoided the stress and inconvenience the resident reports.
  14. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays in its final response, the complaints process did not serve to move the leak repair forward, and therefore its apology did not adequately ‘put things right’. It did not go far enough considering the impact the landlord’s inaction had on the living conditions in the property and it did not properly consider the time and effort spent by the resident in pursuing the matter. Additionally, despite promising the resident it would share a schedule of investigation and works, this did not appear to happen.
  15. Overall, the landlord failed to undertake the necessary works within a reasonable time. While the landlord recognised the delays and apologised, 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. The resident continued to report the leak but contrary to the landlord’s policy was not given clear dates and times of when suitable and lasting repairs would take place, nor information about her ongoing insurance claim. The resident has confirmed to us that the leak remains outstanding almost 2 years later.
  16. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation awards up to £1,000 should be considered where there has been a failure that significantly affected the resident. Given the failings identified, orders have been made. These have taken into account a number of factors including the length of delay and the resulting impact on the living conditions in the property, the time and effort spent pursuing the matter, the resident’s disability and the fact the leak was worse when it rained, according to the resident. It has also been noted that the resident commented that the landlord paid her £250 towards an excess when she made a claim on her own contents insurance. 

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaints policy:
    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 she 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 procedure.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 25 and 26 April 2023 about the drain outside and the downpipe repair respectively. The landlord acted fairly by considering both repairs under one complaint reference, however it did not acknowledge the complaint promptly, only doing so on 11 May 2023. It subsequently issued its stage 1 response on 17 May 2023 – 14 working days after receipt of the complaint. This was slightly outside its policy timescales although does not seem to have impacted the substantive issues. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not refer to the external drain overflowing outside her front entrance door. By not doing so, the landlord missed the opportunity to address the resident’s concerns sooner which caused frustration to the resident who may have felt ignored.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 28 May 2023 and a stage 2 response was sent on 5 July 2023. Again, this was slightly outside its policy timescales, and during this time there was no indication the landlord kept the resident updated. On 22 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord explaining the commitments in its stage 2 had not been carried out and the issues were unresolved. She also explained that she felt the landlord had not addressed her concerns and she remained “dissatisfied with the response”. The landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the complaint at this point. By not doing so, the landlord delayed the resident exhausting its complaints process. This caused distress and inconvenience to her, as she was a resident who made concerted efforts to progress matters.
  5. She explicitly asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3 on 3 October 2023 – over 2 months later. The landlord did not provide its final response until 6 November 2023, however. This was 24 working days later and outside its complaints policy timescales. This again was a minor failing and of short duration which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint sooner and there were delays at every stage of the complaints process. The landlord did not recognise this at all in its formal 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 an overflowing external drain.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £950 made up of:
      1. £100 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of an overflowing external drain.
      2. £750 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
      3. £100 for the failings identified in its handling of the complaint.
    3. Arrange a CCTV drainage survey of the external drain outside the resident’s front entrance door. The landlord must share a copy of the report with both the resident and this service, as well as an action plan setting out how it intends to resolve any blockage found, with anticipated timescales. Once the landlord is satisfied the issue is resolved, it must consider whether any cleaning is required to the paving/pathway.
    4. Carry out an inspection of the rainwater pipe in the resident’s property and the roof. The landlord must share the inspection report with both the resident and this service, as well as an action plan setting out how it intends to resolve the leak from the rainwater pipe including ensuring a correct bung is fitted.
    5. Update the resident about the insurance claim. It must also assess any damage to the resident’s belongings and décor caused by the leak 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, and address promptly any queries she may have.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence that it has attempted to comply with the orders within the above timescale

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should contact the resident requesting evidence of any increased utility bills arising from use of the dehumidifier it provided and consider appropriate reimbursement.