London Borough of Lambeth — case 202343152

Decision Case ID 202343152 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Lambeth Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Leaseholder Date 17 June 2026 Background In December 2023, the resident reported a leak from her bathroom ceiling which she said was coming from the property above. The resident later said she wanted the landlord to cover the £500 insurance excess on her buildings insurance claim, relating to damage to her property caused by the leak.

What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. The landlord’s handling of the complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. The landlord delayed responding to the leak reports, failed to follow its repairs policy, and did not progress the repair within a reasonable timeframe or keep the resident properly informed.

This caused inconvenience, time and trouble. It also did not show it had responded to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the insurance excess. The complaint handling. The landlord did not act in accordance with its complaint handling policy, with significant delays at both stages and no evidence of agreed extensions. These failings caused the resident avoidable time and trouble. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 15 July 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250, made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of a leak affecting the property. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint‑handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than 15 July 2026 3 Response order The landlord must respond to the resident’s complaint about the insurance excess payment. No later than 15 July 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 23 December 2023 The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The resident said: that a leak entered their property from the flat above she contacted the duty concierge, who attended the flat above and confirmed that the toilet was blocked and had overflowed, causing the leak into the resident’s property she asked the landlord to investigate the leak.

28 December 2023 The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. 20 February 2024 The resident told this Service that the landlord did not follow its complaints policy or its repairs policy in relation to a leak from the flat above their property. The resident wanted the landlord to complete a full investigation, provide a formal complaint response in line with its policy, and cover the £500 insurance excess. 15 May 2024 This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to provide a written stage 1 complaint response within 5 working days, by 22 May 2024.

21 May 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. Within it the landlord said: it apologised for not providing a response within its complaint timescales, explaining the delay was due to the original case officer going on long-term leave without an effective handover a works order was raised on 9 January 2024 to address a blockage in the flat above it could not find evidence of repeated leaks any liability for costs would need to be directed to the building insurer. 28 May 2024 The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2.

The resident said: the concierge had already attended, confirmed the cause of the leak, and reported it, so it was not her responsibility to raise repairs on behalf of the tenant above the root cause of the leak was the flat above and the landlord was responsible for the £500 building insurance excess. 11 July 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. Within it the landlord said: it apologised for the delay in it responding at Stage 1, acknowledging that the service and communication fell below its usual standards it maintained the position set out in its Stage 1 response.

What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. Finding Maladministration What we did not investigate and why In this case, the resident made a claim on the landlord’s leasehold building insurance policy and disputed liability for the policy excess.

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the actions of the landlord, for example its communication with the resident. We do not consider the insurer’s decision-making or the terms and application of the insurance policy, such as provisions relating to liability for the excess. The Ombudsman does not normally investigate complaints that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. In this case, we have not seen evidence that any events relating to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the insurance excess, after 11 July 2024, were progressed through the landlord’s complaints process to completion.

References to any other events beyond that date are included for context only. What we did investigate The landlord’s homeowners’ handbook states that leaseholders who experience a leak from a tenanted property should first try to contact the tenant to stop the source. If this is not possible, they should report the issue to the landlord as soon as possible so it can raise a work order for repairs, and the building insurer can consider any claim for damage. The landlord’s Repairs Policy (2024) states that it will respond to reports of a leaking toilet, or a leak from a pipe, tank or cistern, within 1 working day.

In an email to the landlord on 23 December 2023, the resident reported a water leak in her bathroom and said the concierge had informed her it was caused by a blocked toilet in the flat above. The resident reasonably understood the concierge to be acting on the landlord’s behalf and therefore she believed that the landlord was aware of the reported leak from this date. We have seen no evidence that this was an ongoing leak that the landlord was required to attend to prior to this report.

In her email, she asked the landlord to investigate the leak. However, the landlord did not act on the resident’s report. This was a failing that resulted in an avoidable delay in it progressing the repair. On 25 December 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had arranged for an emergency electrician due to water damage affecting the bathroom light. The electrician removed the existing fitting and installed a temporary light, pending reinstatement once the ceiling was repaired.

The resident also said she had contacted the building insurer to make a claim to cover these costs. On 28 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord raised a works order on 9 January 2024 to unblock the toilet in the flat above. The landlord reassigned the work order on 20 January 2024 and recorded it as completed on 22 January 2024. This was 9 working days after the work order was raised and around 1 month after the initial report, which was outside the expected timescale.

The main delays arose because the landlord took over 2 weeks to raise the work order following notification of the leak, and it then needed to reassign the works to a different contractor. This resulted in an avoidable delay in addressing the leak and meant the landlord did not provide a reasonable standard of service. The resident was required to spend time and effort pursuing the matter and experienced inconvenience as a result. The homeowners’ handbook states that leaseholders must pay the first £500 of any claim for accidental damage.

It also directs residents to make an insurance claim where damage is caused by a leak from another property. On 8 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say she felt it was seeking to avoid liability for the £500 insurance excess on her claim. The claim related to damage to her property caused by the leak. She said the damage arose from the landlord’s failure to repair the toilet within a reasonable period, which led to contaminated water entering her property. In its stage 1 response on 21 May 2024, the landlord said it was for its insurer to determine liability and advised the resident to pursue the insurer directly in relation to her claim.

This was consistent with the homeowners’ handbook, which states that the insurer will deal with claims for any damage caused by leaks from a tenanted property into a leaseholder’s home. On 28 May 2024, the resident escalated her complaint and again asked the landlord to consider covering the £500 excess payment, as she considered it responsible for the leak and resulting damage to her property. In its stage 2 response of 11 July 2024, the landlord did not address her request for it to cover the excess payment, refer to its insurance policy, or explain whether it would consider such requests.

This contributed to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. The landlord later told this Service that the resident could submit a request for it to consider reimbursing her with the charge and acknowledged it should have made this clear in its complaint responses. We note the landlord should have engaged with the resident and assessed her request for reimbursement on its merits, but it failed to do so. In summary, the landlord’s failings caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble, and contributed to an avoidable delay in resolving the repair.

In its final complaint response, the landlord did not offer redress for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused in line with its compensation policy. The landlord showed no evidence of specific learning to prevent similar failings. To reflect the impact on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150, in line with our compensation guidance. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.

This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy also allows for extensions of up to 10 working days, provided the resident is informed and revised timescales are agreed. The landlord failed to comply with its policy at both stages. It did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation, nor did it agree any extensions with the resident. The stage 1 response was issued on 21 May 2024, 102 working days after the resident made a formal complaint on 23 December 2023.

The stage 2 response was issued on 11 July 2024, 33 working days after the resident escalated the complaint on 28 May 2024. These delays were unreasonable and caused the resident additional time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial redress where a service failure has had an adverse impact on a resident. In this case, the landlord did not offer any compensation in recognition of the time and trouble the resident experienced with the delays in its complaint handling.

Consequently, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 to the resident, in line with our compensation guidance. Learning The landlord did not manage the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaint policy or the Complaint Handling Code. This reinforces the importance of landlords adhering to complaint handling timescales, promptly acknowledging complaints, and agreeing extensions with residents where delays are unavoidable, in line with the Code.

The case also demonstrates the need for landlords to accurately reflect the reasons residents escalate complaints and to address all substantive issues raised, to ensure fair and effective complaint resolution. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The case demonstrates the importance of landlords acting promptly on reports of leaks, particularly where they involve water ingress from another property, in line with its homeowner’s handbook and repair timescales. It also highlights the need for landlords to maintain oversight of repairs to avoid delays caused by internal processes, such as late job raising or contractor reassignment.

Communication The case also demonstrates the importance of landlords explaining its position on insurance-related matters, including whether it can consider reimbursement requests and how residents can make such requests.