London Borough of Lewisham (202400955)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400955

Lewisham Council

27 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak.

Background

The complainant has been a leaseholder of the landlord since 8 August 2011. The property is a flat within a block which the leaseholder sublets and does not live in. The landlord is a local council. An arms-length management organisation (ALMO) was responsible for the council’s housing management function until 1 October 2023 when the council took back responsibility. For simplicity, this report refers to both the council and the ALMO as ‘the landlord’.
On 7 January 2022 the leaseholder reported a leak. The landlord attended on 10 January 2022 and raised a job for a roofer to investigate further. The leaseholder reported leaks at least 4 more times between March and November 2022.
The leaseholder lodged a stage 1 complaint on 7 November 2022 which said:
1. He had reported leaks multiple times since August 2021. The landlord had carried out some repairs but the leak returned whenever it rained.
2. He had planned to clean and repair the damage over the summer but the return of wet weather meant he had to postpone it.
3. He was concerned about the health risks to his tenants from mould spores.
4. Reinforcing bars had been exposed before the initial repair and he was concerned they would deteriorate further and affect the building’s structural integrity.
5. His tenants had decided to move out meaning his flat would be vacant and virtually uninhabitable due to the inadequate repairs.
6. The landlord’s communication was poor and it had not responded to him at all despite promising to do so.
7. He wanted an urgent investigation into the leak and an on-site meeting with a representative of the landlord who could authorise a plan of action.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 23 November 2022. It said:
1. Its contractor had attended on 1 and 8 November 2021 and carried out repairs to the flat above’s balcony to make it watertight and prevent further leaks.
2. The complaints aftercare team had tried to contact the leaseholder in January 2022 following complaints in 2021 to confirm whether the leak was resolved. It was not clear if they had received the leaseholder’s emails but it apologised for not acknowledging them.
3. Its contractor had then attended in January, February, and March 2022 and addressed all issues.
4. The contractor had inspected the upstairs balcony again in September 2022 and found no issues. The landlord was sorry if this had not been relayed back to the leaseholder when he requested updates.
5. The landlord had arranged a new inspection with a different contractor which would include inspecting the roof and balcony again. They would contact the leaseholder directly with an appointment.
6. The landlord would continue to monitor the case through to completion and keep the leaseholder updated at every stage.
The leaseholder chased the landlord on 2 December 2022 as he had not heard from the contractor. He said unless the landlord took action within 5 working days, he would escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord said the contractor had inspected the roof and concluded that it needed replacing. The landlord said it would begin a Section 20 consultation imminently and look for a temporary solution in the interim. It would update the leaseholder by 6 December 2022 with a date for a further inspection.
On 12 January 2023 the leaseholder chased again. He said that as the landlord had not progressed the issue as promised or acknowledged his stage 2 request, he wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 3. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 10 February 2023 which said:
1. The contractor had fixed the balcony with silicone and unblocked the downpipe on 26 January 2023.
2. The landlord apologised for failing to contact the leaseholder by 6 December 2022. The staff member involved no longer worked for the landlord so it could not investigate why this happened.
3. The landlord accepted there were delays which caused property damage and offered the leaseholder £200 compensation to acknowledge the delay, distress, and inconvenience.
The leaseholder escalated the complaint to an independent adjudicator for a stage 3 response on 2 November 2023. He said the leak remained unresolved and the lack of action and communication was at odds with the landlord’s damp, mould, and leaks policy. The independent adjudicator responded on 30 November 2023. They said:
1. The leaseholder’s handbook said leaseholders should claim against the landlord’s buildings insurance for leaks in the first instance. They could also apply to court for an Order of Specific Performance to compel the landlord to act and/or to claim damages. However, the complaints process was an alternative method of dispute resolution which could avoid legal action.
2. The landlord had not escalated the complaint to stage 2 when the leaseholder initially asked to and its communication had been poor overall. The landlord should also have agreed to the leaseholder’s request to meet on-site.
3. The stage 2 response had been reasonable. Although it later became clear the balcony repairs had not worked, it was reasonable for the landlord to try a simpler fix first even though a roofer had recommended replacing the roof.
4. However, the leak was still unresolved 6 months later and due to the need for a Section 20 consultation, roof works could not begin until February 2024 at the very earliest, which was not good enough.
5. To recognise the significant stress and distress caused to the leaseholder the landlord should:
  1. Apologise.
  2. Pay an additional £200 compensation.
  3. Ensure it invited the leaseholder to any future site meetings.
  4. Provide within 2 weeks a copy of the surveyor’s report of 3 October 2023 and its plan for the Section 20 consultation and completing the works.
6. It also recommended that in future the landlord:
  1. Clearly record and communicate its reasons for taking a different course of action to that recommended by its contractors.
  2. Give greater priority to repairs in situations where a home is not weatherproof.
  3. Remind staff that normal business should continue pending the outcome of a complaint.
The leaseholder escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman. He remains dissatisfied as he says the landlord did not act on the independent adjudicator’s recommendations and the leak remains outstanding. As a resolution he would like the landlord to:
1. Find the source of the leak and fix it.
2. Make good the water damage to the ceiling in his flat.
3. Provide a single point of contact to take responsibility for ensuring the leak is resolved.
4. Action the stage 3 recommendations.
5. Follow the damp, mould, and leaks policy.
6. Buy the flat back from him without any financial loss due to the leak, if it cannot be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. For this reason, our investigations are usually limited to events in the 12 months prior to the stage 1 complaint up until the landlord’s final response under the complaints procedure.
In this case we have seen evidence of the leaseholder reporting the leak in July 2021, although he says the first report was sometime prior to June 2021. He made a stage 1 complaint about the leak on 20 August 2021 and the landlord responded on 8 September 2021. On 22 September 2021 the leaseholder asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. In response the landlord said the repairs team would investigate further to establish whether it was a new issue or a continuation of the previous one, which it said would then be grounds for a stage 2 complaint. It also said it was unclear whether the leaseholder meant he had not received the stage 1 response, so it re-sent it. The leaseholder did not follow up the stage 2 request until he logged a new complaint in November 2022.
We have carefully considered whether the landlord’s failure to respond to the 2021 stage 2 complaint request is grounds to extend the period of our investigation. While the landlord should have logged a stage 2 complaint, there was a misunderstanding on the landlord’s part about what the leaseholder was requesting and whether it was related to the same leak. It would have also been reasonable, however, for the leaseholder to have followed up on the stage 2 request at an earlier stage. More than a year passed before this happened. Considering this, we have decided to focus our investigation on events from 7 November 2021 onwards, which is 12 months prior to the complaint made in November 2022.

Leak

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it:
1. Logs and orders reported repairs promptly.
2. Adopts a ‘right first time’ approach where it proactively manages repairs and the resident does not have to chase works.
3. Proactively schedules appointments for follow up visits when works cannot be completed at the first visit and keeps the resident informed.
4. Responds within:
  1. 24 hours for emergency repairs which includes work to avoid flooding or major property damage.
  2. 3 working days for urgent repairs which includes work to prevent property damage.
  3. 20 working days for routine repairs which are those that do not fall into the other categories.
The Ombudsman expects landlords and their contractors to maintain comprehensive records of all contact with residents, repair requests and services provided. This should include details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The landlord responded to the leak report on 7 January 2022 within 1 working day, which was appropriate. Repair logs show that it raised follow on works for a roof inspection however it is not clear if it did anything to stop the leak in the interim. The landlord must ensure it records what actions have been taken at each repair appointment. Failing to do so means we cannot determine whether the landlord’s response was reasonable.
If a temporary fix were put in place, it would have been reasonable for the roof inspection to take place within 20 working days. Repair logs show the job marked complete on 10 February 2022 but there are no notes to indicate whether the inspection went ahead and if so, what the outcome was.
There is evidence of further leak reports between then and the stage 1 complaint and the jobs being marked as complete but again, there are no notes to demonstrate what action the landlord took. Without any evidence of work being carried out we cannot conclude that the landlord responded appropriately.
The leaseholder told us that the contractor attended on 26 September 2022 which aligns with the repair log and stage 1 response. The stage 1 response said the contractor could not find any issues with the balcony that might be causing the leak at that appointment however, the landlord did not follow this up with any further investigation. This was inappropriate.
The stage 1 response did not address the leaseholder’s comment about the leak having caused damage to his flat. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer its insurance details so the leaseholder could make a claim if he wished to do so. It should also have acknowledged his request for an on-site meeting. It did not have to agree to this but it should have given an answer. Otherwise, the response was reasonable.
The landlord did not keep the leaseholder updated as promised, which was inappropriate. The contractor inspected the roof and found it needed replacing but the leaseholder only became aware of this after he chased the landlord on 2 December 2022.
The landlord told the leaseholder it would begin a S20 consultation to replace the roof but between then and 26 January 2023, it decided to carry out a simpler repair to the balcony and downpipe instead. It is not clear if the contractor had concluded that the leak was coming from the roof. Assuming they had not, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt a simpler repair. However, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not inform the leaseholder of this and explain its reasoning. The leaseholder was only told that these works had taken place in the stage 2 response.
It is positive that the landlord accepted its failings and offered compensation. Its compensation policy says that it may offer between £51 and £250 for service failure where the complainant has suffered a level of inconvenience and/or distress that exceeds what a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept. The £200 offer, therefore, was reasonable.
On 23 April 2023 the leaseholder reported that the leak had returned. The landlord did not raise a works order until 9 May 2023 and we have not seen any evidence of the outcome. The stage 3 response said that the contractor attended on 9 June 2023. This was 31 working days after the report, an inappropriate delay.
The contractor did not resolve the leak at this visit and the landlord did not follow up with the leaseholder. He chased later that month but received no response. He reported the leak again on 21 and 29 September 2023 and again asked to meet the landlord on site but again, the landlord did not respond which led the leaseholder to escalate the complaint to stage 3.
The stage 3 response was reasonable. In the Ombudsman’s view, had the landlord acted on the recommendations then the complaint would have been resolved satisfactorily. However, to date, there is no evidence that the landlord complied with any of the recommendations and the leak remains outstanding.
There were a number of failures in this case which have led us to make a finding of maladministration. In summary:
1. There is no evidence of the landlord carrying out any work between the initial report on 7 January and 26 September 2022.
2. The landlord failed to offer its insurance details or respond to the leaseholder’s request to meet on-site.
3. Communication was poor throughout and the landlord did not keep the leaseholder informed when it decided to take an alternative approach to fixing the problem, rather than addressing the roof as was recommended.
4. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded appropriately to further leak reports or that it reconsidered replacing the roof when the simpler fix failed.
5. The landlord did not follow through on the stage 3 recommendations. This was a missed opportunity to show it had learned from the complaint and was committed to resolving it.
6. The leak remains unresolved more than 2 years and 2 months after the initial report was made.
We have made orders at the end of this report for the landlord to put things right for the leaseholder. This includes an order to pay compensation. The landlord already offered £400 compensation during the complaints process but considering the leak remains unresolved, we do not consider this enough to fully reflect the impact on the leaseholder. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance explains that compensation in the region of £800 would be proportionate for maladministration where there has been a significant impact. This would be an appropriate amount including the £400 already offered.
The leaseholder said he wants the landlord to make good the damage the leak has caused. We have made an order for the landlord to provide its insurance details so the leaseholder can make a claim. We recognise that this is less straightforward than ordering the landlord to do the work but the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for property damage to be resolved via insurers. However, we have recommended the landlord consider resolving it directly to make it easier for the leaseholder.
Similarly, the landlord is under no obligation to buy the flat back from the leaseholder if he decides to sell so we are unable to order it to do so. However, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider this if and when it becomes relevant.
Finally, this investigation has identified failures in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record keeping which are similar to those identified in case 202124577. 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 which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
Additionally, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. 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 outcome and action needed following the completion of the investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak.

Orders

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
  1. Apologise to the leaseholder in writing for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and be in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
  2. Pay the leaseholder £800 compensation, including the £400 offered during the complaints process. If this has already been paid the landlord must provide evidence of this.
  3. Provide the leaseholder with a copy of the surveyor’s report of 3 October 2023. If it cannot obtain a copy, it should inform the leaseholder of this in writing.
  4. Arrange an inspection with an independent contractor to determine the source of the leak and provide the leaseholder with a copy of the report and its recommendations.
  5. Provide the leaseholder with a named staff member to oversee the works through to completion and their contact details.
  6. Provide the leaseholder with details of the appropriate insurer so he can make a claim for any internal damage.
  7. Confirm in writing that it will invite the leaseholder to any future site meetings and ensure this request is clearly recorded on the landlord’s and its contractor’s systems.
2. Within 4 weeks of the date of the inspection:
  1. Complete the recommended work, unless a S20 consultation is required in which case it must:
  2. Issue the S20 Notice of Intention and confirm in writing to the leaseholder that it will keep him updated about what will happen and when at each stage of the consultation and works until they are complete.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Consider the leaseholder’s request to make good the leak damage without going through insurers as a goodwill gesture.
2. Consider the leaseholder’s request to buy the flat back from him if the leak cannot be resolved.