Summary: We find the Council delayed taking action against the leaseholder of a flat, despite Mrs B’s reports of multiple leaks and noise nuisance. This led to prolonged disruption for Mrs B, repeated disturbance, and distress. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs B to recognise the impact of its failings. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that the Council failed to properly deal with disrepair issues in the flat above her property. As a result, she experienced multiple leaks between 2019 and 2025, which sometimes left her family without lighting or hot water. She says the Council also failed to properly deal with persistent noise nuisance caused by incorrectly fitted doors that slammed loudly.
2. Mrs B states that these issues caused significant distress to her and her family, adversely affecting their wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. As explained in paragraph three, we will usually only investigate complaints about matters the complainant became aware of in the 12 months before they complained to us. Mrs B complained to us in June 2025 about matters dating back to 2019. Mrs B has not provided any good reasons why she did not complain to us sooner. I therefore do not consider there are grounds to exercise discretion to investigate events before June 2024. I have also not investigated events since July 2025, when the Council issued its final response to Mrs B’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs B and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Regulatory Services Partnership

9. Public protection and environmental health services are delivered by a tri-borough partnership, made up of Merton Council, Richmond upon Thames Council and Wandsworth Council.
10. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services, we treat actions taken by that other organisation as actions taken on behalf of the Council and in the exercise of the Council’s functions. In this case, we have treated the actions of the Regulatory Services Partnership as actions taken on behalf of Wandsworth Council, because they relate to a property in the Wandsworth area and each council is responsible for public protection and environmental health services in its own area.

Key events

11. Mrs B contacted the Council in August 2024 about a leak from the above flat, which was resolved following the Council’s involvement.
12. Between December 2024 and May 2025, the Council received reports of further leaks from the flat, some of which were affecting Mrs B’s home. Mrs B also reported in February 2025 that she was being regularly disturbed by the noise of slamming doors from the flat.
13. The Council’s records show that it inspected the flat in February 2025 and noted several defects which required attention. It informed the leaseholder that a further inspection would be carried out in March and it would refer the matter to its Private Housing Team if all issues were not rectified. A further inspection was carried out which identified that the repairs had not been completed. The case was then referred to the Private Housing Team.
14. In May 2025, Mrs B made another report to the Council stating that she was still being affected by leaks from the flat and noise from slamming doors. She then made a formal complaint to the Council that it had failed to take appropriate action.
15. In the Council’s response, it explained that the flat is privately owned so the leaseholder is responsible for addressing internal repairs and any anti-social behaviour originating from within their property. It said it had inspected the doors and found them to be in satisfactory condition. It had contacted the leaseholder several times, and referred the matter to the Private Housing Team, who intended to serve an Improvement Notice. The Council accepted there had been some delay but said it had taken reasonable steps, including inspections and liaison with relevant parties, and it set out a plan to monitor the situation and take further action if needed.
16. Mrs B remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. She reported another serious leak affecting her electrics, questioned delays in repairs and enforcement, and said the situation was harming her health. She also raised concerns about poor communication.
17. In the Council’s final response, it accepted there had been delays, particularly in taking legal action against the leaseholder to resolve the breach of the lease, and it apologised. It outlined the steps it intended to take, including arranging an urgent inspection, pursuing legal action for breach of the lease, and continuing to press for an Improvement Notice to be served. While it acknowledged the impact on Mrs B, it did not consider financial compensation appropriate.
18. After Mrs B submitted her complaint to us, an Improvement Notice was served on the landlord and the Council commenced the legal process for breach of the lease. It is satisfied that all required repairs have since been carried out.
19. Mrs B moved out of the property in February 2026.

Analysis

20. I am satisfied that the Council carried out inspections in February and March 2025 and contacted the landlord to carry out the necessary repairs. However, the Council did not then commence action against the landlord for breach of the lease until after Mrs B complained in May 2025. This delay was fault.
21. The Council referred the matter to the Private Housing Team in March 2025, who carried out an inspection in early April. It says that as there was no evidence of an active leak, it decided it should not take formal enforcement action. However, it found evidence of actionable defects during a further inspection it carried out in early May. A notice was not issued until August 2025. This delay was fault.
22. In June 2025, the Council told Mrs B that the doors had been found to be in a satisfactory condition and she was advised to complete a noise nuisance diary to document incidences of noise nuisance from slamming doors. However, the inspection carried out in February 2025 had noted that the doors in the flat needed to be adjusted to prevent noise nuisance. Mrs B was given incorrect information and inappropriate advice in June 2025. This was fault.
23. There were delays in taking effective enforcement action against the leaseholder when it became clear that informal attempts to resolve the disrepair and nuisance were not working. The Council accepts it should have escalated matters sooner, including considering legal action for breach of the lease at an earlier stage. There were also delays in progressing the involvement of the Private Housing Team and ensuring timely action, such as the service of an Improvement Notice.
24. This fault caused injustice to Mrs B. She experienced ongoing leaks and noise over a prolonged period, including incidents that disrupted her lighting and supply of hot water. This will have caused inconvenience, uncertainty and distress. The repeated nature of the issues, and the delays in resolving them, are likely to have compounded the impact on her wellbeing.

Back to top

Action

25. As explained in paragraph 10, we have treated the actions of the Regulatory Services Partnership as actions taken on behalf of Wandsworth Council. Here we have found fault by the Regulatory Services Partnership, but we make our recommendations to Wandsworth Council alone.
26. The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of my final decision:
• Make a payment of £500 to Mrs B to recognise the distress, inconvenience, and disruption caused by the failings identified in this case.
27. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Review how it manages leasehold enforcement cases to ensure matters are escalated more quickly where informal action is not effective.
• Improve coordination between teams, particularly with the Private Housing Team, to avoid delays in actions such as serving Improvement Notices.
• Remind staff of the importance of timely responses and proactive case management where there are ongoing reports of disrepair or nuisance.
• Ensure clear communication with residents about responsibilities, actions being taken, and expected timescales.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs B’s complaint. There was fault which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman