From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Lewisham (202428707)

Back to Top

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428707

Lewisham Council

20 May 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 report of a leak from the flat above and subsequent damage to the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, living in a flat. The flat above the resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the bathroom ceiling, originating from the flat above, on 22 January 2024.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 26 March 2024. She said the leak had been ongoing since 21 January 2024 and had impacted the electricity and boiler use. She hired a private electrician who found the light fixtures rusty from long-term water damage. She had chased the landlord to complete the repairs multiple times, but it had been unable to complete the work due to access issues. She said the landlord sent an enforcement letter to her flat instead of the flat above. She asked the landlord to urgently fix the leak.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 15 April 2024. It said it was working to gain access to the flat above and had formally written to them advising it was a breach of the tenancy agreement to not allow access for essential repairs. It asked the ‘leaks access department’ to provide a more detailed update and next steps by 19 April 2024. It said it was not responsible for any remedial work in the resident’s property as she is a leaseholder. It referred the resident to her insurance policy and its building insurance.
  5. On 22 April 2024 the landlord told the resident it would repair the leak in the upstairs flat on 26 May 2024. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 24 May 2024. She said the resident of the flat above was not aware of the appointment on 26 May 2024 and thought the repair had been completed. She said the landlord advised the original repair was temporary and it was going to replace the pipe as a long-term repair.
  6. In its stage 2 response on 1 July 2024 the landlord said it repaired the leak from the flush pipe on 18 April 2024. The appointment on 26 April 2024 was to renew the low-level cistern as it did not need to trace the leak. It apologised for the poor communication and delay in clarifying when it attended to resolve the leak.
  7. The resident raised a further complaint on 22 January 2025. She said the leak was ongoing. She said following the repair in April 2024, she monitored the moisture level in the ceiling, but it did not dry enough to replaster it. She raised it with the landlord, and it advised the leak was not ongoing as there was no obvious source. She said in October 2024, the leak restarted but the landlord did not take any action. She was unhappy that the landlord continued to assert there was no leak. She said the leak had caused damp and mould on her bathroom ceiling, possibly corroded the pipes running in the ceiling, and damaged the electrics. She said the issues had impacted her family’s health and she had called over 100 times chasing the repair. She asked the landlord to complete a full leak trace procedure, replace the upstairs toilet, and gain a court order to access the upstairs property if the neighbour did not provide access.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 11 February 2025. It confirmed its records showed an ongoing issue with intermittent leaks from the flat above. It had written to the neighbour to gain access to carry out the repairs. It would force entry to carry out any necessary remedial repairs if it was unable to gain access. It would provide a further update by 20 February 2025.
  9. The resident escalated the complaint on 3 March 2025. She said the landlord recognised the leak was ongoing but had not fixed it. She added that it had not specified when it would complete the repair. She had chased the matter twice and it had not responded. She asked for a date and an action plan for the repairs.
  10. In its stage 2 response on 31 March 2025, the landlord said it was committed to resolving the outstanding repairs. It said it was unable to gain access to the upstairs flat on 21 February 2025, so it had initiated its ‘leaks access process’. It had written to the neighbour to schedule a further appointment for 7 April 2025. It would then update the resident with any progress made. It did not typically complete repairs to leaseholder properties but would replaster the damaged ceiling area as a gesture of goodwill once the leak was resolved.
  11. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as the leak is ongoing. She said she was unable to claim for damages as the insurance requires confirmation that the leak is resolved. She wanted the landlord to trace and remedy the leak and replace the upstairs plumbing as the previous resolution had not worked. She said the landlord had been very dismissive of her reports. She also raised concerns that she required consistent use of the electricity as she required the use of the fridge to store medical supplies. 

Assessment and findings 

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her family’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, 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.
  2. Often, when 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 that can provide an expert opinion of 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. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the flat above and subsequent damage to the property

  1. The lease states that the leaseholder is responsible for keeping the flat and its fixtures and fittings in good repair. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building. The landlord’s website states that for tenanted properties, it is responsible for repairs to leaks. The repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. It considers emergency repairs as those to remove immediate danger, including to restore electrical supply and heating during winter.
  2. The resident initially reported a leak from the flat above on 22 January 2024. As the leak came from a tenanted property rented out by the landlord, the landlord was responsible for resolving the leak. The landlord booked an appointment for 8 February 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to establish the condition of the leak or if it was containable to properly assess what priority the repairs were.
  3. On 25 January 2024 the resident chased the repair for the leak. She said the landlord’s contractor attended, after she reported the electricity kept tripping, but was unable to fix it. She then hired a private contractor to resolve the issue. The landlord should have urgently handled repairs to the leak, given the safety issue regarding the electricity. This would allow the resident to arrange to repair the lights.
  4. On 27 January 2024 the resident raised concerns that the landlord had booked an appointment for 8 February 2024 to repair the leak, which she did not think was sufficiently urgent. The resident said the tripped electricity meant that she was without use of hot water, internet, or lights, which had a significant impact as she worked from home. This would have caused significant disruption and inconvenience. Given the impact on her property, it was reasonable that the landlord completed an emergency appointment on 29 January 2024 to trace the leak. However, the records do not provide any details of the investigation undertaken. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Due to the lack of information, we are unable to establish what the landlord did during this appointment.
  5. The landlord internally stated on 31 January 2024 that the flat above had not responded. It told the resident on 2 February 2024 that it referred the matter to its ‘leaks access team’. The landlord sent letters to the neighbour on 21 February 2024, 28 February 2024, and 5 March 2024 to notify of appointments on 28 February 2024, 4 March 2024, and 11 March 2024 respectively. It was unable to gain access to the property at any of the appointments.
  6. The landlord was not necessarily responsible for the delays due to no access appointments, but it should take appropriate steps to ensure it can gain access. Its ‘required access policy’ states that if it has exhausted all other routes to gain access, it will pursue legal measures such as obtaining a warrant to gain access. It notes this will be a last resort. In this case, as the landlord had made numerous attempts to contact the resident and attend the property and the neighbour had not provided access, the landlord should have considered how to escalate the matter at that stage.
  7. The resident told the landlord on 11 March 2024 that she received an enforcement letter from the landlord, and was concerned the landlord had incorrectly sent it to her instead of the neighbour. The landlord has not provided a copy of the enforcement letter sent to the neighbour, so there is insufficient evidence that it took the correct action. The resident’s councillor further chased the matter on 25 March 2024 and asked the landlord to confirm it sent the enforcement letter to the correct property. The landlord’s error and subsequent failure to address her concerns would cause the resident to lose trust that the landlord was acting appropriately to resolve the leak.
  8. On 26 March 2024 the landlord marked a work order to repair the leak as completed. Again, it is unclear what work it undertook to satisfy it had resolved the repair issue.
  9. The resident asked the landlord on 12 April 2024 to provide an estimated timeframe for gaining access to the neighbour’s property to complete the repairs. In its stage 1 response on 15 April 2024 the landlord said it was working to gain access, and it told the neighbour that not allowing access for essential repairs is a breach of tenancy. It told the resident on 17 April 2024 that it was assessing whether it could issue a court injunction. It subsequently said it was unable to provide a timeline of repairs due to the access issues. The landlord may have been able to manage the resident’s expectations, however, by offering to provide her with frequent updates. This was a missed opportunity.
  10. The landlord internally stated on 19 April 2024 that it identified the low-level cistern had a minimal leak from the flush pipe which it repaired. The landlord therefore did not complete the repairs for almost 3 months. In normal circumstances this would be an unacceptable delay, however this was largely outside of the landlord’s control due to the access issues.
  11. The resident chased the repairs on 22 April 2024 and asked if it had gained access to the neighbour’s property. The landlord said it would complete repairs to the source of the leak on 26 May 2024. In its stage 2 response on 1 July 2024, the landlord said it repaired the leak on 18 April 2024 and the appointment for 26 April 2024 was to renew the low-level cistern. As such, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord informing the resident that it had resolved the leak. This would have prevented the resident from progressing the internal repairs. It was appropriate that the landlord identified its shortcomings as it apologised for its poor communication and delay in providing clarity.
  12. The resident told the landlord on 8 July 2024 that her builder attended and found the ceiling was still wet and said it should have been dry if the pipe was repaired 11 weeks prior. She added that black mould was present. The resident also told the Service that her damp meter readers showed increasing levels of damp, but it is unclear whether she notified the landlord of this. The landlord promptly responded the following day and said it would further investigate the matter. The landlord told the resident’s councillor on 15 August 2024 that it completed 3 post-inspections on 1 July 2024, 27 July 2024, and 2 August 2024 and confirmed there was no active leak. This was reasonable action to take.
  13. However, the only evidence supporting the landlord’s account is an email from the contractor on 26 July 2024, which stated they found no leak and the ceiling was dry. If there is a disagreement over the condition of a property and the efficiency of the repairs, the landlord should have clear records to support its position and confirm how it has satisfied it fulfilled its repair obligations. In this case the landlord has only provided evidence of one appointment, which appears to be a visual inspection. This would not necessarily provide accurate findings, given the leak was intermittent.
  14. The landlord said it would complete damp, and mould works once the ceiling was dry, which exceeded its obligations under the lease agreement. It also completed a mould treatment to her bathroom on 21 August 2024.
  15. The resident told the Service that the water began leaking from the same place on 20 October 2024. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 30 October 2024 and confirmed an intermittent leak. It told the resident’s councillor that it attended the neighbour’s property on 8 November 2024 but was unable to gain access. It arranged a further appointment on 19 November 2024 and the contractor noted the leak into the resident’s property had stopped but it was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property to complete further checks. The landlord was aware the leak was intermittent, so to conclude it had stopped based on one appointment when it had not completed any repairs was unreasonable. There was a further no access appointment to the flat above on 14 January 2025.
  16. As part of this investigation, the Service asked the landlord for up-to-date repair records. The landlord said it did not have any further repair records after 16 November 2024. However, this contradicts the landlord’s most recent complaint responses which stated there was a no access appointment on 21 February 2025 and a further appointment scheduled on 7 April 2025. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. In this case, it has failed to demonstrate appropriate awareness of its handling of the leak. Due to the lack of records, we cannot confirm the outcome of the appointment on 7 April 2025.
  17. In its final response, the landlord said it had commenced the ‘leaks access procedure’. While this is a reasonable step, as there is no evidence that the neighbour made any attempts to engage with the repair process, the landlord should have started the ‘leaks access procedure’ sooner. Again, although the landlord was given the chance to provide such information, it has not informed the Service of any more recent steps it has taken to gain access and complete the repairs.
  18. Overall, the leak has been intermittently ongoing for over 15 months, which is an unreasonable timeframe. The landlord initially took practical steps to resolve the leak, considering the access issues were outside of its control. However, its handling of the resident’s reports from July 2024 onwards showed a lack of urgency given the significant impact on the resident’s property. The landlord failed to recognise this in its complaint responses.
  19. To resolve the complaint, the landlord must complete necessary surveys and provide a clear action plan outlining how it will resolve the leak in full. This should include a specific timeframe for how it will escalate the matter if the neighbour continues to not provide access. It must also commit to providing weekly updates on the progress of the repairs. It is understood that the neighbour did not give access due to being at work. The landlord should consider whether it can complete the repairs outside its typical repairs hours to provide a quicker resolution.
  20. It is evident the leak had a significant impact on the resident, particularly due to the damp and mould, loss of electricity, and concerns about the structure of the building and the electrical fittings. She also told the Service that she requires consistent use of the electricity to store medical supplies in the fridge, which understandably caused her stress. It is clear she has also expended significant time and effort chasing the repairs, including contacting her councillor to progress the works.
  21. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£1000 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failures adversely impacted the resident. Due to the extent of the delays, the worry caused in respect of the medication and the repeated failures to start the ‘access procedure’ – the Ombudsman considers £800 compensation would be proportionate. The resident also requested the landlord to reimburse her for the electrician costs and replastering work. It was not appropriate that it referred her to the relevant insurers for this. If the resident can show the additional cost, the landlord should consider this.
  22. Finally, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping – 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 the Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
  23. Moreover, 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

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the flat above and subsequent damage to the property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £800 for its handling of the repairs to the leak from the flat above. It should provide the Service with evidence of the payment.
    2. Arrange a survey at the resident’s property as well as the flat upstairs. See below for further information on the survey order.
    3. Provide evidence of completion with these orders.
  2. The landlord must:
    1. Ensure that a survey of both properties is completed within 4 weeks of this determination. The focus should be on tracing the leaks and identifying long term solutions. The landlord may wish to use an independent surveyor. The surveyor must be suitably qualified to undertake surveys on this nature.
    2. Take steps to ensure the survey includes:
      1. A full scope of works in respect of the pipes and to resolve the leaks
      2. Photographs where appropriate
      3. Any further exploratory works which are required
      4. Any damage caused by leaks in the resident’s home
    3. Take steps to ensure it receives the survey within 10 working days of the inspection of the properties.
    4. It must provide a copy or a summary of the findings to the resident together with evidence that it has booked in the works or timelines for completion of the works. The landlord must comply with this within 10 working days of receiving the survey report. A copy of its correspondence must be provided to the Ombudsman in this time too.
    5. Use all best endeavours to ensure that all works are started within 8 weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord must, on 8 weeks of the date of this determination, provide the Ombudsman and resident with a full update on where it is with the repairs.
    6. Within 12 weeks, provide an update to this Service, including repair records to confirm it has commenced the necessary repairs to resolve the leak. This must include updates it has provided to the resident.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes.