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

London Borough of Lewisham (202423546)

Back to Top

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423546

Lewisham Council

11 June 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 a leaking toilet, bathroom repairs and associated damage.
    2. Concerns about asbestos.
    3. Reports of rubbish left in the garden.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She occupies a 4-bedroom house since July 2008. The resident has health conditions and mobility issues.
  2. On 8 January 2024 the resident reported an uncontainable leak from the toilet causing a hole in the kitchen ceiling below. The landlord attended on 26 March 2024 to carry out a repair to the toilet, but the resident said it continued to leak which affected her tumble dryer.
  3. On 11 June 2024 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said the upstairs toilet had leaked since 2022 but no one came out to change it and her complaints were ignored. She also raised concerns that the property had asbestos. She wanted compensation for the damage to her tumble dryer and for the delays in completing repairs. She wanted a new bathroom, toilet, doors, windows and stairs. The same day the landlord attended to the leak and renewed the toilet and bathroom flooring.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 July 2024. It apologised for its delayed response and the delay in the kitchen ceiling repair and confirmed this was arranged for 12 July 2024. It noted an asbestos survey took place in May 2023 and while asbestos was found, it remained undisturbed and posed a minimal risk to the household. With respect to compensation and damage caused to the tumble dryer, it said it could not take responsibility for the resident’s personal belongings and suggested she claim under her home contents insurance. It did not uphold the complaint because it said there was an ongoing legal disrepair claim about the condition of the property.
  5. On 8 July 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She said her legal representative told her that the landlord had denied liability for the disrepair and that the case was closed. She also said the new toilet had not been installed properly as the flooring was not levelled and her husband had tripped. She said the property was not suitable for the household, and the plumber left rubbish in the front garden which had not been cleared away.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 August 2024. It did not uphold the complaint, stating that although it was attempting to resolve the matter and to schedule repairs, the resident had said she would not provide access until her complaint was resolved.
  7. In the resident’s referral to the Ombudsman, she said that although a new toilet was put in, it still leaked. She added the kitchen ceiling hole and bathroom repairs were outstanding. The resident remained concerned about the health risks regarding asbestos, and said the rubbish in the garden had not been cleared away. As a resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to move her. She also wanted compensation and reimbursement for damaged items.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint to us, she said that issues with the property started around 2009. She also said a leak occurred in 2022. While this may be the case, we think it would have been reasonable for the resident to raise a complaint about these issues at an earlier time, as the time that has since passed without her doing so would impact the Ombudsman’s ability to reliably assess the facts. Accordingly, this report will focus on the relevant events from the resident’s initial reports about the leaking toilet in January 2024 to the landlord’s final response in August 2024.
  2. In the landlord’s final response, it said that during a phone call the resident advised that her health had declined due to the outstanding repairs in her home. It is beyond the expertise of the service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Where there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence relating to the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused, and this investigation will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and obligations and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leaking toilet, bathroom repairs and associated damage

  1. The landlord has an obligation under the tenancy agreement to maintain all installations for sanitation as provided by it including the toilet. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms 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.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide sets out that major leaks are its responsibility and considers uncontainable and serious plumbing leaks, where there is an immediate danger to people or of flooding or major damage to the property, to be emergencies. The landlord would adopt a ‘right first-time’ approach, where it proactively manages repairs, and the resident does not have to chase works.
  3. Following the resident’s report on 8 January 2024, the landlord raised a job promptly. However, this appeared to have been abandoned and it is unclear why. The leak was subsequently attended to on 26 March 2024 – almost 3 months later. Considering this was initially raised as an emergency repair, the landlord failed to attend within its policy timescales and there is no evidence that the resident was updated about the abandoned job or the delay.
  4. Around a month later, on 23 April 2024, the resident reported that the leak continued despite the work carried out. A work order was raised on 1 May 2024 and attended on 11 June 2024, the same day as the resident made a formal complaint. The operative replaced the toilet and bathroom flooring. The landlord should have acted with more urgency as, despite work having been previously carried out, the resident had reported a continuing leak. This was a further avoidable delay. The landlord asked on 3 July 2024 if the problem had been sorted and advised it would arrange for an operative to attend to the hole in the kitchen ceiling. This was a reasonable approach, but it should nevertheless have carried out the renewal of the toilet and bathroom floor sooner. The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for the delay in arranging the repair and confirmed an appointment had been arranged for 12 July 2024 to remedy the hole in the kitchen ceiling.
  5. We have also seen that the landlord advised the complaint was not upheld and gave the reason for this as an ongoing legal disrepair case. The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right and to recognise the detriment caused to the resident by the delays in remedying the leak and toilet and bathroom flooring renewal. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that although a disrepair claim was opened against the landlord, the case was closed and no court action took place.
  6. Subsequently on 12 July 2024, the landlord’s operative attended for the appointment as stated in the stage 1 response, but the operative reported that the resident refused access as she had a complaint ongoing and wanted it resolved before giving access for any repairs.
  7. The landlord did not acknowledge or mention in its final response any action taken in relation to bathroom flooring or the report of the continuing leak. It is possible that had its operative been given access on 12 July 2024 it would have looked at these issues, though its stage 1 response specifically referred to this appointment as being for the kitchen ceiling hole repair.
  8. In any case, while the landlord in its stage 1 response recognised the delay in remedying the bathroom leak, it missed a further opportunity to put things right. Despite the resident reporting the leak again, it failed to act with the necessary urgency, indicating that it had not learnt from its previous delays. It also failed to address the fact that the resident said the flooring was not properly levelled which she said in her escalation request had caused her husband to trip. The landlord did not act fairly by failing to address her concerns about the flooring and seemed focused only on the missed kitchen ceiling repair appointment.
  9. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord was limited in what action it could take regarding the kitchen ceiling given the resident’s refusal to provide access to her property. The landlord’s stage 2 response was fair given the circumstances. We have seen no evidence or correspondence to suggest the resident contacted the landlord before 12 July 2024 to cancel the appointment.
  10. With that said, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to encourage the resident to provide access or to make an appointment when she was ready to do so. From the resident’s point of view, the landlord had failed to treat an uncontainable leak as an emergency repair, and there had been avoidable delays in responding to her reports of the leak. This resulted in distress and inconvenience to the household, which lived with a leak for a prolonged period of time.
  11. It is unclear if the landlord did attempt to make a further appointment, and we have only seen evidence that it attempted to call the resident on 20 August 2024. There was no correspondence from the landlord in relation to this issue in the remainder of 2024 or in 2025. While it appears that the resident was resolute and would not provide any further access until her “complaint was resolved” and that she felt “it was too late for [the landlord] to help as [it did] not care”, this seemed to be an isolated instance of a missed appointment. And the landlord should have made further efforts to arrange an appointment after its final response. This was a further failing on the part of the landlord. Orders have been made below.
  12. Regarding the resident’s reports of damage to her tumble dryer, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to suggest that she claim under her home contents insurance. However, the landlord should also have signposted the resident to its own liability insurer. A recommendation has been made for it to do so.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about asbestos

  1. The landlord’s repair guide says that as long as asbestos is not damaged or located somewhere where it can be easily damaged, it will not be a risk as it is only dangerous as an airborne fibre. The landlord’s asbestos policy says it aims to prevent the exposure to and manage the risks associated with asbestos containing materials. It adds all surveys will be undertaken by an approved, accredited and suitably qualified surveyor. The landlord will also ensure all current asbestos information available is added to the digital asbestos register.
  2. We have seen the landlord carried out an asbestos survey in May 2023. It found there was asbestos in the property but that the original textured coated ceiling had been removed in 2019 with new plasterboard ceiling installed in its place. On 3 July 2024 the landlord’s asbestos compliance officer confirmed it was safe to proceed with repairs to the kitchen ceiling, and we have seen a screenshot of this entry in the asbestos register.
  3. The resident raised concerns about asbestos in her formal complaint of June 2024 stating the property had asbestos and she felt that it was unsafe to live in. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acted reasonably by checking its records prior to attempting to commence any works and explaining to the resident that it had carried out a survey in May 2023. It clearly explained that asbestos within her home remained undisturbed and posed a minimal risk. This was a reasonable response, and the landlord acted appropriately in this respect.

The landlord’s handling of reports of rubbish left in the garden

  1. When carrying out work to the property, the landlord or its contractor should remove any rubbish and waste resulting from work or maintenance carried out on the property. As part of the resident’s escalation request on 8 July 2024, she advised that following the work carried out on 11 June 2024, waste materials and the old toilet were left in the front garden. She added the contractor said they would come back for it but this had not happened.
  2. At this point, the landlord should have arranged for the rubbish to be collected within a reasonable time. The evidence showed that on 8 July 2024, the landlord internally chased for the waste items to be removed from the front garden. However, no meaningful action appeared to take place after this. The resident advised us that this is outstanding to date.
  3. As the resident said the rubbish was left in the front garden, the landlord did not need access to the house itself. In the circumstances, it should have contacted the resident with a date that it would remove the rubbish from the front garden. In the landlord’s final response, while it acknowledged the rubbish issue as part of the escalation request, it did not address this matter, rather focusing on the lack of access for the kitchen ceiling hole repair. It missed an opportunity to explain its position and apologise for the delays.
  4. The resident confirmed in May 2025 that the rubbish had still not been cleared. This is concerning as it is a considerable amount of time after the landlord was on notice. This understandably caused distress to the resident as she was unable to properly enjoy her front garden for 11 months. It is unclear why the landlord did not attempt to clear this rubbish immediately after its final response.
  5. In this case, even though the resident did not accommodate an appointment on 12 July 2024, the landlord should have made reasonable attempts to clear the rubbish. By not doing so, this was a failing on the landlord’s part and caused frustration to the resident. Our remedies guidance suggests awards up to £100 where there was failure which was not put right. This has been considered as part of the orders.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, after which it aims to respond at stage 1 within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord aims to provide a written response within 20 working days of the escalation request. If more time is needed to complete the investigation at stage 1 or 2, the time limit may be extended which will be communicated to and agreed with the resident.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 June 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, nor did it provide a formal response within 10 working days. However, we have seen the landlord did contact the resident on 3 July 2024 asking for more information so it could investigate the matter, which was not unreasonable. It subsequently issued its stage 1 response on 8 July 2024. This was 19 working days after the formal complaint and outside its policy timescales. This was a minor failing, and the landlord acted fairly by apologising for the delay in its stage 1 response. 
  3. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 8 July 2024. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge this within a reasonable time. We have seen the landlord did apologise for the delay in its acknowledgment and explained this was due to a backlog. It subsequently issued its stage 2 response on 21 August 2024. This was 44 working days after the escalation request and again outside its policy timescales. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt her concerns were being ignored.
  4. Overall, the landlord failed to engage with the escalation request in a reasonable time, which amounted to an avoidable delay and inadequate communication with the resident. This likely undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord to satisfactorily resolve matters for her. Although this was a minor failing, the landlord missed an opportunity to offer an apology or compensation for the delay in its final response. This was a service failure. Our remedies guidance suggests awards from £50 for a service failure which was minimal, of short duration and may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. In view of this, an order is made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leaking toilet, bathroom repairs and associated damage.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of concerns about asbestos in the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of rubbish left in the garden.
  4. 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 for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £350 made up of:
      1. £200 for the failings in its handling of reports of a leaking toilet, bathroom repairs and associated damage.
      2. £100 for the failings in its handling of reports of rubbish left in the garden.
      3. £50 for the failings in its complaint handling.
    3. Work with the resident to arrange an inspection of the toilet, kitchen ceiling and bathroom flooring and provide a schedule of works to both the resident and the Ombudsman setting out how it will carry out lasting repairs. It must then carry out works within its repair timescales, if the resident is agreeable.
    4. Remove the rubbish in the garden, if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should assess any damage to the resident’s belongings caused by leaks 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 so and how she can pursue an insurance claim under the landlord’s liability policy.