London Borough of Lewisham (202345032)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345032

Lewisham Council

14 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 the resident’s reports of damage to a heating pipe, and subsequent loss of heating and hot water.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident occupies the property, a 2-bedroom house, under a secure tenancy which began on 31 March 2008.
4. On 1 December 2023, 6 new radiators were installed at the property. When the heating was switched on after installation, a pin hole leak in the pipework under the laminate flooring was heard.
5. The contractor attended again on the 11 December 2023 to repair the leak, but would not lift the laminate flooring unless the resident signed a disclaimer for damage, so the appointment was terminated.
6. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 December 2023. He said:
   1. That the engineer had damaged one of the radiator pipes during installation of the radiators.
   2. That the contractor would not carry out the repair because the resident refused to sign a disclaimer for damage caused by the engineers.
   3. That he could hear the hissing sound continuously under the floor.
   4. That he was concerned that his water bill would be increased by the leak.
   5. That he wanted a solution to the matter.
7. The resident raised a further complaint on 14 December 2023. He said:
   1. That since the contractor attended on 11 December 2023, he had no heating upstairs, and the boiler kept displaying a fault.
   2. That he had been trying to arrange an appointment for the contractor to return to complete the job, but kept being passed between the landlord and contractor.
   3. That he was suffering with cold during the cold days and nights and this was affecting his health condition and his state of mind.
8. On 29 January 2024, the contractor attended at the property again. The resident signed a disclaimer and the contractor lifted the laminate flooring. When the laminate flooring was lifted, suspected asbestos was identified in the floor tiles which lay underneath. An asbestos survey on 2 February 2024 confirmed the presence of asbestos in the floor tiles and ceilings at the property.
9. The landlord’s contractor provided the stage 1 response on 9 February 2024, and apologised for the events the resident had experienced. The landlord said that it planned to run the pipework above ground, and would contact the resident to book the works after confirming it had approval from the landlord.
10. The resident escalated his complaint on 11 February 2024. He said:
    1. That since discovery of the asbestos, he was now very concerned for his health as he had been diagnosed with cancer since living at the property.
    2. That he wanted to know what the landlord would do to reduce harm or risk to his health.
    3. That he had been without proper heating for months.
11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 March 2024, and apologised that its contractor had not met the level of service the landlord expected, and for the disruption and inconvenience this caused the resident. The landlord noted that the repairs were more complex, but that the landlord had intervened to bring the works forward and they should be completed by 26 March 2024. It also said that although it had removed the resident’s laminate flooring to test for asbestos, it was not responsible for replacing it.
12. The landlord’s contractor completed works to re-pipe the heating system on 5 April 2024 with assistance from the asbestos team.
13. The resident was offered compensation by the landlord’s contractor on 9 July 2024, following the conclusion of the complaint process and after completion of the works. The contractor offered £267, for the delayed repair, partial time without services and a contribution towards increased water costs due to the leak.
14. The resident confirmed that he had rejected the offer because he thought it was too low, and he wanted the Ombudsman to investigate his case.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to a heating pipe, and subsequent loss of heating and hot water

15. The landlord’s repair guide states that, in line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for making sure all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity and space and water heating are kept in working order.
16. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and urgent repairs within 3 working days. Emergency repairs include a total loss of heating and hot water, and urgent repairs include a leak from a water or heating pipe, and a partial failure of sanitation; water or electrical supply; and heating systems, occurring between 1 November and 30 April.
17. In this case, the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 1 December 2023 to fit new radiators. The contractor noted that on switching the heating back on, a pinhole leak could be heard under the lounge radiator. The records show that the contractor made a request for a builder to attend to lift the laminate flooring so that the pipework could be repaired.
18. In the meantime, the contractor noted that the leak was small so that the heating could be used if the resident topped up the pressure. The contractor also noted that, although topping up the pressure would be an acceptable solution temporarily, the leak needed to be fixed. It was reasonable that the contractor found an interim solution to reduce the impact on the resident.
19. After identifying a leak from a heating pipe, the landlord should have responded within 3 working days to the repair request, in line with its repairs policy. In fact, the contractor attended again on 11 December 2023. This was 6 working days later, 3 days in excess of the landlord’s 3 working day target for an urgent repair.
20. On 11 December 2023, the records show that the landlord’s contractor began to lift the laminate flooring to access the pipework, but the record states that he felt that the laminate flooring was going to break, so he wanted the resident to sign a disclaimer. It is not disputed that the resident refused to sign a disclaimer, and that consequently the contractor terminated the job without accessing the leaking pipe under the floor.
21. It was in line with the landlord’s policy for the contractor to ask the resident to sign a disclaimer to acknowledge that the contractor would not be liable for damage to the flooring. This is because the landlord’s repairs policy states that a tenant may be asked to clear an area, or lift a floor covering to allow the landlord access to carry out work. The policy states that if the landlord assists with this, it is not responsible for putting things back in place or for any damage incurred, unless it is caused by neglect by its repair workers. Therefore, the contractor’s actions were in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
22. The contractor’s records noted that the office was to speak to the landlord and the resident to find a way to lift the floor. However, there is no evidence within the records provided to the Ombudsman that the contractor or landlord followed up on this request to resolve the issue with the resident. This delayed finding a resolution.
23. In addition to his complaints, the resident chased the matter a further 4 times between 13 December 2023 and 29 December 2023. Despite these numerous contacts by the resident, the matter did not progress any further during this period.
24. On 2 January 2024, the contractor emailed the resident and explained that as the flooring had been put down by the resident, it would be the resident’s responsibility to lift it. It confirmed that it could assist with removing the flooring, but only if the resident signed a disclaimer. While this contact from the landlord’s contractor was reasonable action to progress the repairs, it was not completed in a timely manner. This caused a delay in progressing the repair.
25. The resident responded to the landlord’s email the same day to confirm he would be away from the property between 3 January 2024 and 18 January 2024, but could arrange an appointment for the contractor to attend when he returned. As it was unable to access the property while the resident was away, the landlord was not responsible for the delay during this period.
26. The records show that the contractor attended at the property on 29 January 2024. The contractor lifted the laminate flooring, but did not access the pipework underneath the floorboards due to discovering suspected asbestos in the floor tiles under the laminate floor. The contractor appropriately contacted the landlord the same day to request an asbestos survey, and the survey took place within 4 working days, on 2 February 2024. It was reasonable for the contractor to cease works once it found suspected asbestos, so that necessary health and safety checks could be completed.
27. In light of the inspection, which found asbestos in both the floor tiles and the ceilings at the property, the contractor attended on 8 February 2024, to survey the property and plan alternative pipe runs to minimise any disturbance of the asbestos.
28. The landlord arranged for its asbestos team to attend with the contractor on 20 February 2024, to drill holes in the ceiling for new pipework runs under controlled conditions. This work was followed by reassurance testing to ensure that the environment was safe after the drilling.
29. It is accepted that the discovery of asbestos within the flooring tiles and ceiling complicated the repair and led to additional necessary work during this period in order to comply with safety requirements. The landlord and contractor acted appropriately during the period immediately after identifying asbestos on 29 January 2024. It was appropriate to arrange an asbestos survey, identify alternative routes for the pipework, and then to arrange safe drilling of holes for the pipework on 20 February 2024.
30. There is also evidence that the landlord provided the resident with information and reassurance about the presence of asbestos at the property in its email to him of 15 February 2024. This was an appropriate and prompt response by the landlord to the resident’s concerns about his safety which he had raised in his escalation request on 11 February 2024.
31. However, while the asbestos team and contractor attended as planned on 20 February 2024, and the holes were marked and drilled, the pipework was not completed on that date. The works to re-pipe the heating were subsequently arranged for 26 March 2024, which was a further month later. There is no explanation for this delay offered within the records or the complaint response. In the absence of a reasonable explanation, the further delay was inappropriate, and contrary to the landlord’s repairs policy.
32. When the contractor attended on 26 March 2024, he identified that the asbestos team would need to return to drill more holes, as the previous holes were not in the correct place for the heating pipes. This led to a further delay, and the works to restore the heating were not completed until 5 April 2024, now 4 months after the leak in the heating pipe had been identified.
33. The resident’s initial refusal to sign the disclaimer, his absence from the property for 2 weeks, along with the fact that asbestos was found at the property, contributed to the delay in completing the heating repairs in this case. However, there is evidence of poor communication with the resident, and unnecessary delays caused by the contractors.
34. In addition, although the contractor stated initially on 1 December 2023, that the heating was working if the pressure was topped up, the resident reported problems again with the heating on 13 December 2023, noting that it had not been working properly since the contractor visited on 11 December 2023.
35. On 16 December 2024, there is a record that the resident had reported again that he had no heating and hot water. The records show that the contractor appropriately responded to this report within 24 hours, and attended at the property the same day. The contractor confirmed that the boiler was losing pressure because of the leaking pipe and that the boiler was working after being repressurised by the contractor.
36. It is evident the loss of heating had a significant impact on the resident. He reported several times between 13 December 2023 and 11 February 2024 that he was unable to keep warm, which impacted his health issues, and he was off sick from work. He added he was unable to look after his grandchildren due to the low temperatures. Furthermore, on 29 January 2024, the contractor’s record noted that the job needed to be completed as soon as possible because the resident had cancer. There is no evidence the landlord subsequently took any steps to prioritise the work.
37. Additionally, there is no evidence that alternative heating, such as an electric heater, was offered to the resident by the landlord or contractor to mitigate the effect of the partial heating loss. This would have been a practical mitigation, given that the landlord and contractor were aware of the resident’s health issues, and that the partial heating loss occurred during the winter months.
38. In light of the failings identified, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised in the stage 2 response for delays in addressing the leak from the heating pipework and the resulting partial loss of heating and hot water.
39. Whilst the stage 2 complaint response did not refer to compensation, the Ombudsman has seen email correspondence between the landlord and the resident soon afterwards in April 2024 requesting copies of his water bills in order to determine any financial losses related to the leak. After completion of the repairs, there was also email correspondence between the landlord and the contractor regarding compensation for the delay and the partial loss of heating and hot water.
40. The contractor wrote to the resident on 9 July 2024, to offer him the sum of £267 compensation for the delay, partial time without services, and a contribution to the resident’s increased water costs during the period from 1 December 2023 to 5 April 2024.
41. It was appropriate that the landlord’s contractor offered compensation, in recognition of the failings acknowledged in the complaint response. However, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation of £267 offered by the landlord’s contractor did not adequately reflect the significant impact of the failings on the resident, and therefore did not fully put things right.
42. In consideration of the above factors, a finding of severe maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to a heating pipe, and subsequent loss of heating and hot water.
43. Considering the significant impact on the resident of the loss of heating due to his health condition, and the length of time taken without resolution of the issue, an appropriate compensation award for distress and inconvenience in this case would be £500. This award for distress and inconvenience is to be made in addition to the £267 already offered by the landlord’s contractor for the delay and partial loss of heating, and the increased water costs. This increased award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

44. A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this.
45. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022, which was applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint, landlords were required to:
    1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of receipt. In exceptional circumstances, the landlord could extend this timeline up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons.
    3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of the escalation request. In exceptional circumstances, the landlord could extend this timeline up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons, along with a clear timeframe for when the response would be received.
46. There were delays at both stages of the complaints procedure in this case. The stage 1 acknowledgement was 3 working days late. Whilst the landlord appropriately sought to manage the resident’s expectations by notifying him that it would need 18 working days to provide its stage 1 response, the landlord then went on to miss this extended deadline by a further 23 working days. The stage 2 response was then 8 working days late.
47. The Code also specifies that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
48. Contrary to this requirement, the contractor’s stage 1 response failed to address all of the points raised in the resident’s complaints of 11 and 14 December 2023. It did not address his concerns about an increase in his water bill due to the leak, nor did it respond to his concerns about not having adequate heating upstairs. The response also failed to address the communication issues the resident described in his complaint, where he said that he felt he was being passed between the landlord and contractor without making any progress in arranging an appointment for the repair.
49. Whilst it may have been appropriate for the landlord to seek input from its contractor, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have reviewed the response to ensure it was compliant with the Code, that it addressed all aspects of the resident’s complaint, and that any remedy, if offered, was appropriate.
50. The landlord did not recognise these failings or apologise for the delays in its complaint handling at stage 1 or stage 2, or make an attempt to put things right.
51. Overall, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. To acknowledge this, the landlord should pay him £100 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation of this amount where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to an underfloor heating pipe and subsequent loss of heating and hot water.
53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

54. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology from the chief executive for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be drafted in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance. A copy of the apology must be provided to the Ombudsman.
    2. Pay the resident £867 made up of:
       1. £267 as offered previously in relation to the delay, partial loss of services and increased water costs.
       2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to an underfloor heating pipe and subsequent loss of heating and hot water.
       3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of payment of the compensation to the resident.