London Borough of Lewisham — case 202415671

Decision Case ID 202415671 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Lewisham Landlord type Local Authority Occupancy Leaseholder Date 25 November 2025 Background The resident is a leaseholder of a flat owned by the landlord, which she in turn lets to a private tenant. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to her as “the resident”. She reported a leak to the landlord in September 2023, and it identified this was coming from the flat above. She complained the following month as she said it had not taken any further action.

The resident referred her complaint to us as she said it had not kept her informed or resolved the leak satisfactorily. The complaint The complaint is about: The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the kitchen ceiling. The landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We found: Service failure in the landlord’s response to the leak. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons The leak The landlord did not keep the resident informed and there was information missing from its response, which made it unclear what action it planned to take. Complaint Handling The landlord was slightly outside its response timescales however the delays were not excessive and did not have any bearing on its overall handling of the issue. 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 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays resolving the leak. This includes the £100 it previously offered.

The landlord must show it has paid the total of £200, directly to the resident, and provide documentary evidence of this by the due date. For clarity, if the landlord has already paid the £100 it initially offered, it must pay an additional £100 to comply with this order. No later than 23 December 2025 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 24 September 2023 The resident reported a leak coming through the ceiling into the kitchen. The landlord attended that day and said the leak was coming from the flat above, so it could not fix the problem there and then.

3 October 2023 The resident raised her complaint and said: The landlord had failed to attend a follow-up appointment. It had not responded to her requests for an update. The leak was still present and was damaging the property. She suspected the problem may be with the roof, not the flat above. 23 October 2023 The landlord contacted the resident to confirm it had logged her complaint. 2 November 2023 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It was sorry for the inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs.

It could not give further information about its contact with the upstairs neighbour, due to data protection issues. It planned to inspect the roof the next day. 29 November 2023 The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said it had still not fixed the leak or answered all her questions. 3 January 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It found no signs of damage to the roof. It had identified brickwork issues affecting another flat and a builder was due to attend that day.

It implied this was to resolve the leak, but it specified a different flat to the one above. It was sorry for the delay in addressing the repair and offered £100 in compensation. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident referred her complaint to us as she said the landlord had still not fixed the leak and she was unhappy with its response. January to September 2024 Emails between the resident and the landlord show it fixed the leak shortly after its stage 2 response. However, the resident then reported that the leak had returned and she made a further complaint about this.

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 Leak from the kitchen ceiling Finding Service failure Investigation scope The resident said the leak has been a recurring problem since 2019.

She made previous complaints to the landlord however she did not refer these to us, so we will not investigate those events here. The resident has also made further complaints since the landlord’s final response, due to the leak reoccurring. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had chance to put right first. Given the above, we will consider the landlord’s actions from 24 September 2023 when the resident first reported the leak on this occasion, up to its final response of 3 January 2024.

If the resident remains dissatisfied after a further final response from the landlord, she can ask us to consider opening a new investigation. The leak The landlord inspected the ceiling the same day as the resident’s report, in line with its repairs policy. It is understandable that it could not resolve the issue at that point, as it did not have immediate access to the flat above. However, there is no clear evidence to show what the landlord did next, and the resident complained as she said it had not resolved the leak or kept her informed.

In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it could not confirm when it next planned to visit the flat above. At that point the leak had been ongoing for over a month. While a full repair may not have been possible at that time, there is no evidence that it considered the possibility of an interim solution, which is contrary to its policy on leaks, damp and mould. However, the landlord did confirm that it would inspect the roof the next day, which was reasonable given the resident’s concerns that this may have been the cause.

The landlord checked the roof on 3 November 2023 and emailed the resident on 27 November to confirm it did not find any issues. It also said its contractor had identified the source of the leak in the upstairs flat, and it had arranged a further appointment to resolve this. The resident asked the landlord to confirm when it would complete the work and compensate her for the delays and costs of internal repairs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delays in addressing the repair and offered £100 in compensation.

In terms of the resident’s expenses, the landlord gave details of its buildings insurance should she wish to make a claim for damages. This was appropriate given her responsibilities and potential remedies as a leaseholder. However, its compensation offer did not fully reflect the resident’s time and trouble. The landlord’s response regarding the actual repairs was confusing. It said it had identified water ingress affecting another flat due to brickwork issues, but the flat number it gave was different to that of the property above.

Accordingly, it is not clear how the landlord’s intended actions related to the resident’s property. The landlord did not explain this discrepancy or give any updates regarding the leak from above, which it had previously attributed to a pipework problem. The resident has confirmed that the landlord did subsequently repair the leak. However, at the point of its stage 2 response, it left the resident with an unresolved issue and it has not provided any further evidence of its efforts to resolve the matter up to that point.

In the absence of such evidence, it is not possible to conclude that the landlord acted reasonably. Complaint Complaint handling Finding No maladministration The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint required it to acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days and respond in within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. Its policy further stated it would respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. This was compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time.

The landlord issued its stage 1 response 6 working days outside its maximum response timescale. However, it had contacted the resident the previous week to apologise and explained it was having IT issues. The landlord also exceeded its stage 2 timescale by 2 working days. However as neither delay was excessive, and there is no evidence the delays causing any clear effect, they were not significant enough to be considered service failures. Learning The landlord has not shown that it maintained clear records, and its communication with the resident was sporadic and brief.

The landlord may have avoided some of her frustration had it given prompt updates and been clearer about its actions. In not doing so it missed an opportunity to improve the landlord and tenant relationship.