From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

WATMOS Community Homes (202438361)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438361

WATMOS Community Homes

25 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated repairs.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a flat within a block. The landlord is the freeholder of the block. The flat above the resident’s is privately owned by a leaseholder, who we will refer to in this report as “the leaseholder”. The flat above is let out to a sub-tenant via a managing agent, who will be referred to as “the managing agent”.
  2. The resident reported a leak was entering her home from the flat above on 18 December 2023.
  3. Following contact from the landlord the managing agent arranged for a plumber to attend to the leak on 19 December 2023 as an emergency appointment.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 20 December 2023. She was unhappy the leak had damaged her home. She wanted the landlord to investigate the disrepair in the flat above. She also asked it to waterproof the external brickwork. She said the neighbour from the flat above had told her they had reported leaking pipes to the landlord without it acting.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 January 2024. It told the resident it did not uphold her complaint because:
    1. It made immediate contact with the leaseholder’s managing agent after the resident reported the leak.
    2. It was taking action in accordance with the terms of the lease to access the flat above to inspect its condition.
    3. It did not believe the external facade of the building needed to be waterproofed.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 8 February 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She did not agree that it did not think the external wall needed to be waterproofed when it had not inspected it. She said a contractor told her it had identified another leak in the flat above on 16 January 2024. She also said there had been a further leak from the flat above that came into her home on 3 February 2024. Her internal wall was damaged.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 March 2024. It told her that:
    1. The managing agent had told it all repairs had been completed but it was still trying to gain access to inspect itself.
    2. It apologised it did not quicky progress its action to access the flat above.
    3. It accepted there had been service failure because it did not give her confidence the leaseholder had fully repaired the cause of the leak.
    4. It found her request to inspect the external wall reasonable and had arranged for an inspection.
    5. It should have provided her a dehumidifier.
    6. It did not progress the redecoration of her home within its guidelines but it assured her it would complete the redecoration by 15 March 2024.
    7. It had requested access to inspect the flat above by the end of March 2024.
  8. The landlord awarded the resident £250 compensation in its stage 2 response. That figure was broken down as:
    1. £100 for failing to confirm it had resolved all leaks promptly.
    2. £50 for not providing a dehumidifier.
    3. £50 because it did not seek access to the flat above as quickly as it suggested it would in its stage 1 response.
    4. £50 for not listening to her concerns about the external wall.
  9. The landlord inspected the flat above on 14 March 2024. It repaired the stop cock the same day as it had identified another leak. It visited the flat above again on 22 April 2024 and checked the boiler overflow was not leaking anymore. The leaseholder confirmed it had completed the repairs.
  10. The landlord repaired the resident’s bedroom between March and April 2024. It completed those repairs on 9 April 2024. It completed the repairs to her living room on 31 August 2024.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 30 December 2024. She was unhappy the landlord’s repairs had not been long lasting. She was unable to use her living room because of mould. She told us that she wants it to repair the external wall, instruct the leaseholder of the flat above to replace the external pipework and carry out further repairs to the inside of her home. There had been a further leak in December 2024.
  12. Since the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord has:
    1. Repointed the external wall on 20 March 2025.
    2. Notified the leaseholder on 27 March 2025 about a poorly fitted booster pump.
    3. Extended the boiler overflow pipe from the flat above into the rainwater gutter on 18 June 2025. It intends to renew the rainwater downpipe before 30 September 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident says her belongings were damaged by the leak. This Service is not able to determine liability for damage to personal belongings. However, we can look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and any advice or guidance it offered.
  2. When the resident escalated her complaint to this Service she said she was unhappy that mould had returned to her living room. It would not be proportionate for us to investigate issues with the repairs that arose 9 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. If the resident still has concerns about those more recent events she would need to raise a new complaint with the landlord about those issues. Our investigation has focused on the period of the resident’s complaint up to the landlord’s stage 2 response. We have also considered whether the landlord completed the assurances made in its stage 2 response.

Landlord’s response to reports of a leak and the associated repairs

  1. As the freeholder of the building the landlord is responsible for enforcing the terms of the lease for the flat above. The lease states that the leaseholder should always keep the flat above in good repair. The leaseholder is responsible for the repair of any pipes that exclusively serve the flat above. The landlord should be given access to the flat above under the terms of the lease upon giving the leaseholder 48 hours written notice. The landlord’s breach of lease policy states it will adopt a firm approach when it becomes aware a leaseholder has breached the terms of their lease. It does not set out timeframes for how soon it should act but it says it will seek to resolve the issue with the leaseholder in the first instance.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time of the leak stated that it would attend to make emergency repairs safe within 24 hours of them being reported. It aimed to complete routine repairs within 25 working days.
  3. When the resident reported the leak on 18 December 2023 the landlord acted promptly in contacting the managing agent of the flat above. Although it was the managing agent who arranged the repair, it was completed within the landlord’s 24 hour timeframe for an emergency repair.
  4. When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint she said her neighbour from the flat above had told her they had reported leaking pipes to “the landlord”. She did not specify who the landlord was. Given the neighbour’s landlord is the leaseholder it is reasonable to expect it was the leaseholder who her neighbour had reported their concerns to. The landlord in this case has not provided any records that the neighbour notified it of any leaks prior to December 2023.
  5. The landlord acted promptly to inspect the damage caused to the resident’s home. It attended on 21 December 2023. It identified that the bedroom ceiling needed to be replaced and a new thermal board installed. It would need to redecorate the bedroom following those repairs. It also needed to partially replaster the living room, clean the walls and paint them with mould resistant paint. It booked in repairs with its contractor the next day and work began on 6 January 2023. Its initial response to the repairs was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy. However, during its visit it missed an opportunity to offer the resident a dehumidifier to expedite the drying process. It did not complete the repairs within 25 working days in line with its repairs procedure.
  6. Some of the landlord’s approach at stage 1 was reasonable. It explained the actions it has taken following the resident’s report of a leak. It was appropriate that it reassured her it was taking action to gain access to the flat above to inspect its condition. It was also reasonable that it explained she would need to submit a claim for damage to her belongings to the leaseholder. However, it missed an opportunity to identify that it had not offered her a dehumidifier. It was not appropriate that it dismissed her request for it to waterproof the external brickwork of the building without explaining why. It also did not address the outstanding repairs to her home.
  7. During the repairs to the resident’s home the landlord provided a dehumidifier on 16 February 2024. It completed an inspection of her home and the external wall of the building the same day. Given she had in part escalated her complaint based on its response to her concerns about the external wall that action was appropriate. Its surveyor found no issues with the external wall.
  8. As the resident had reported further leaks in her stage 2 escalation it was appropriate the landlord gained access to the flat above on 20 February 2024. As the resident had not reported the leak at the time it occurred on 3 February 2024 until her stage 2 escalation 5 days later it is reasonable to expect the leak was not a live issue so the length of time taken for the landlord to gain access was reasonable. However, considering the assurance it made in its stage 1 response it was not appropriate that there is no evidence it had tried to gain access prior to that inspection. Following that inspection it was satisfied the boiler had been repaired. It missed an opportunity to explain that to the resident. That would have reassured her earlier. Instead, she was not told about that until its stage 2 response almost 3 weeks later.
  9. The landlord also took appropriate action the same day, 20 February 2024 when it contacted the managing agent and reminded it of the leaseholder’s responsibilities under the lease. The managing agent said its tenant had not notified it of any further leaks since December 2023.
  10. The landlord’s approach at stage 2 was reasonable. It was appropriate that it agreed to complete the outstanding repairs and inspect the flat above. It put things right from its stage 1 complaint when it apologised and awarded compensation for dismissing her concerns about the external wall and for not providing a dehumidifier. It showed it had taken her concerns about the external wall seriously with a surveyor’s inspection. It was reasonable that it awarded her £100 for failing to reassure her that the leaks had been resolved. Overall, the total £250 compensation it awarded her was proportionate to its failings and was in line with its compensation policy that allows it to award up to that amount.
  11. The landlord completed its assurance that it would inspect the flat above. It is worth explaining at this point that although the flat above’s lease states that the landlord should be given access following 48 hours notice, it relies on the co-operation of the leaseholder and its sub-tenant. It acted in line with its breach of lease policy when it worked with the managing agent to gain access at the various points during the complaint. For it to have legally enforced access it would have required action through the courts. That would have likely resulted in further delays.
  12. The landlord completed the repairs to each room of the resident’s home separately because she needed to use each room for storage while the other was being repaired. It delayed in completing the bedroom repairs slightly, 9 April 2024 instead of the 15 March 2024. That delay was caused by a supply issue with the wallpaper, meaning the delay was outside of its control.
  13. Given the resident’s need for it to complete the repairs separately in effect, the landlord needed to consider each room a separate repair. Taking that into consideration it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have required additional time further to its 15 March 2024 deadline. Had it completed the repairs within 25 working days of that deadline in line with its repairs procedure then the Ombudsman would have considered the landlord to have provided an offer of reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  14. However, considering the repairs had already been outstanding for over the 25-working day timeframe at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response and because it has not provided evidence it explained the reason for the delay or kept the resident updated the further 5-month delay in completing the repairs amounts to maladministration. In not keeping to the commitment it made it risked undermining the landlord tenant relationship.
  15. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by that delay. That figure is in line with the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. It also falls in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which allows it to pay up to £250 for its failure to provide a service within the timescales promised.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak entering the property and the associated repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in completing the repairs to her living room following the leak.
    2. Pay the resident £450 compensation for the failings identified in this report. The landlord is entitled to deduct the £250 it awarded her at stage 2 from that figure if it has already paid her that.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should write to the resident to reassure her of the action it has taken since March 2025 in respect of the repairs to the block’s exterior and the outcome of its contact with the leaseholder of the flat above.