Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Islington (202312470)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312470

Islington Council

21 October 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:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from above and subsequent repairs.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a maisonette on the ground and basement levels of a converted building. The living room is directly above a bedroom. A leaseholder owns the property above and lets it privately. The landlord is a local authority but had a separate housing management organisation which we will also refer to as “the landlord” in this report. The resident was a childminder and lived with her partner and foster child.
  2. The resident reported a leak affecting her property on 2 August 2021. An out of hours contractor attended on the same day to trace and remedy the leak. They found that the leak was from the leasehold property above and reported that the leak was contained. On 3 August 2021, the resident raised concerns about the hole and that the ceiling would collapse. Operatives placed a board over the hole in the ceiling on the same day and reported that it was safe and secure. According to the resident, the leak was ongoing after the boarding. The resident provided evidence showcasing that the ceiling continued to leak after 3 August 2021.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 August 2021 and asked for an update about the leak. She said that the leak happened each time it rained and asked when it would place scaffolding. On Friday 13 August 2021, the property flooded and the ceilings in the living room and bedroom below collapsed. The landlord raised a repair at 9am to make safe the leak and records indicate that it called the leaseholder’s managing agent who attended and resolved the leak on the same day.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate a complaint immediately on 13 August 2021. She was unhappy that it had not responded to her emails or understood the severity of the situation. She set out that the failure to resolve the leak had caused devastation in her property and it was lucky that it did not injure or kill anyone. She added that she had no electricity,and she had her foster child with her. The landlord attended on the same day as the complaint, and reported clearing most of the ceiling debris.
  5. On Monday 16 August 2021:

a.     The resident forwarded emails the landlord had not responded to and asked the head of operations to attend. She copied in her social worker due to her foster placement and said she had no hot water or electricity over the weekend.

b.     The landlord cleared debris, restored the electricity, fitted temporary lighting, changed a blown socket and delivered a dehumidifier.

c.      The landlord called the resident and said she should let it know if she needed temporary accommodation. Internal communication indicates that it was aware that the property was uninhabitable and would make a temporary accommodation referral. It reported that she said her husband and foster child were staying at a hotel, and she did not want temporary accommodation.

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on the same day and set out:

a.     That the operative who attended on 2 August 2021 made a hole and said there was nothing they could do. They left a bucket collecting water. It had then placed a board over the hole, and she chased work as she was concerned that the ceiling would collapse but it ignored her. She was away from the property, but her neighbour told her that water was pouring from the property onto the street on 13 August 2021. They also reported this to the landlord who then took steps to trace the leak.

b.     She had no hot water or electricity over the weekend. She booked an emergency electrician on 13 August 2021 and requested this again that day. Her foster child refused to enter the property as they felt unsafe. She had to arrange for them to stay with a friend, and her and her husband stayed to clear what they could. The landlord had said the only appointment was to complete a ceiling report on 17 August 2021, and no one was responding. She added that they could not work until the situation was resolved due to being childminders.

  1. The landlord’s records show that:

a.     It cleared all damaged furniture, including a fridge, and completed an inspection on 17 August 2021. It also called the resident about arrears on her rent account, and she explained that she could not work and needed to pay £55 per night for a hotel.

b.     It sent a claim for the work to the property to its insurer on 20 August 2021. The resident also contacted her local councillor on 29 August 2021 as she had no contact from the landlord. On 31 August 2021, its insurance team explained that the leak originated in the flat above which was the leaseholder’s responsibility. Its insurers had instructed it to progress works that day. It had passed the work to its contractor to arrange appointments.

c.      The resident called it on 1 September 2021 and asked someone to call her back as a surveyor had told her to discuss her current living situation and loss of earnings in more detail. On 7 September 2021, contractors attended and collected the dehumidifiers.

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2021, the landlord:

a.     Listed the resident’s record of events and confirmed that this was an insurance matter. It said that its insurer had authorised its repairs team to begin work on 8 September 2021. It added that its repairs team would keep her up to date.

b.     Attached a Public Liability Claim form for her to complete and return for the reported damage to her personal belongings and for loss of earnings. An insurance officer would then advise on the next steps.

  1. Repairs began on 8 September 2021. The landlord called the resident for an update on 13 September 2021. She said that she was in the property while it completed work. It asked why she did not go into temporary accommodation, and she explained that the room in a hostel it offered was not suitable for her foster child, so she paid for a hotel.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 21 September 2021:

a.     She did not feel it had taken steps to recognise the serious health and safety breach due to its negligence. She set out that its failure to protect the property resulted in the damage and loss of earnings. She believed it was in breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act in relation to repairing the structure and interior, and maintaining the supply of gas, water and electricity. She was in the property for 3 days without electricity or water.

b.     She maintained that she could not work as a childminder due to the condition of the property, and the situation, including dust, impacted her health. She was unhappy that it had not suspended her rent account while the major works were taking place despite rooms being inaccessible, which resulted in arrears. She had needed to pay for a hotel for her foster child to stay in due to the serious risk during the first 3 days and once work began. This amounted to £598.89.

c.      It had not given her a breakdown of the work covered by insurance but was concerned that this did not include the damage to the flooring throughout the basement level. She added that the flooding had damaged the flooring and wallpaper in the communal area, which was covered in black mould. She asked for a senior manger to attend, and for it to provide a paper copy of the claim form as she could not print this.

  1. The landlord’s records show that:

a.     It completed work to install lights in the living room and bedroom on 21 September 2021. On 22 September, it delivered a dehumidifier as the walls were still wet. The resident communicated with the landlord and Environmental Health due to her concerns about asbestos in the basement flooring between 25 and 27 September. It dropped off 2 dehumidifiers and buckets for water on 5 October.

b.     It sent a stage 1 review response on 5 October 2021. It explained that the insurance process was outside the remit of its complaints process and its insurance officer would address any other concerns. It posted a copy of the public liability claim form for any claim for loss of earnings, rent and the flooring. She asked it to escalate her complaint to the final stage of its complaints process on 16 October.

c.      Between 14 October and 5 November, it reported completing work to scrape off damaged areas and fill the ceiling, replace the lighting in the communal hall, remove the damaged laminate and vinyl, install laminate to the basement level, replace the living room window, work to the ceiling and living room walls in the basement bedroom, and level nails in the living room floor. It collected a dehumidifier on 8 November.

  1. On 8 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for timescales for outstanding work to:

a.     Remove a damaged wardrobe that was a health and safety risk.

b.     Her living room floor, raise and resecure radiator pipes, and replace a broken board in the hall.

c.      Stain block areas and paint in the bedroom, and the living room where damp was still coming through, glue areas where paper had blown, and repair areas in the hall which were scraped during the floor levelling and laying.

  1. The landlord’s records indicate that:

a.     It took damp readings on 15 November 2021 and found that the walls were not yet dry. It emailed the resident on 18 November to confirm that it had booked work. It said it had repaired the living room floor and that she should report the radiator pipes to its heating team. It collected the resident’s wardrobe, stripped a wall and provided paint to the resident, and repaired wood to a door frame between 23 and 29 November.

b.     On 2 December, the resident chased work to paint the living room, repair broken floorboards in the living room and hall, and sand floorboards in the living room. She also raised concern about the quality of work on 9 December.

c.      On 16 December, it said that no further work was needed to the living room floor as this was not damaged during the ceiling collapse. It added that there was a reported leak which it would address that could be causing ingress to the living room. The resident maintained that it said it would sand the floor under the insurance claim and the landlord confirmed that it would pass her concerns about the quality of work to the complaints team.

d.     It erected scaffolding on 21 December. It then authorised additional insurance work and quoted for work to replace the floorboards on 14 January 2022. It reported completed work to resolve a leak from a flue pipe on the roof in January 2022.

  1. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 July 2022 and explained:

a.     It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £75 compensation. It apologised that neither of its previous complaint responses commented on the points she had raised.

b.     Following her initial report on 2 August 2021, the leaseholder in the property above arranged repairs on 3 August 2021, and it made safe the electrics. Even though the leak stopped, the emergency board it placed collapsed on 14 August 2021. It said that the board likely failed due to the amount, and weight, of water in the ceiling. It could not restore the electrics immediately but did so within 24 hours of the ceiling inspection.

c.      The repair became an insurance matter, and it made a claim against the leaseholder’s insurer on 8 September 2021. The ceiling replacement work took place between 8 and 27 September 2021. It said it spoke to her on 27 September 2021 about her concerns related to asbestos in the damaged floor tiles. It then arranged work to remove the damaged laminate and vinyl flooring and replaced this on 19 October 2021. It did not have a record of asbestos in the flooring.

d.     It could not progress work to the plastering on 2 November 2021 due to the level of damp. It completed repairs in November and the last repair was on 23 December 2021 when its insurance contractors submitted a quote to replace and varnish the floorboards in the living room and hallway. It cancelled an appointment on 8 February 2022 as she was unwell. It asked her to contact it to arrange the work.

e.     It offered her temporary accommodation on 16 August 2021 following the ceiling collapse on 14 August, but she declined its offer as her husband and child had already moved to a hotel while she remained in the property. It would not accept liability for the hotel costs as she had sourced her own temporary accommodation while remaining in the property.

f.        It progressed repairs within a reasonable timeframe and could not have foreseen the leak, or the length of time it took for the walls to dry. It apologised that it did not address her health and safety concerns in its previous responses. It had not found evidence to show she asked for a callback regarding her arrears but apologised if this was the case.

g.     It confirmed that it expected the resident to have home contents insurance in case of an emergency such as a leak. It said that if she did not have insurance, she could submit a public liability claim but it had not received a claim. It added that the floorboard damage and repair was part of its insurance claim and any claim for loss of earnings should be part of a personal insurance claim.

Events following the complaint

  1. The resident pursued her concerns with the landlord following the complaint. She wrote to it on 27 February 2023 and said that she was using the pre action protocol for housing condition claims. She included details of the public liability claim. She maintained that there were several inaccuracies in its stage 2 complaint response, and the leak was ongoing until the collapse on 13 August 2021. Among her concerns, she said the landlord was negligent due to its failure to follow-up on the reported leak or trace and remedy this.
  2. The landlord said it would send the public liability aspect of her claim to its insurer on 3 March 2023. On 29 June 2023, it said that it had previously told her it did not accept liability as the leak was from a leasehold property, and any claim she had would be against the leaseholder. It said it would ask its insurers to confirm this position. It asked for the claim to be sent to the insurer that day.
  3. In November 2023, the insurer suggested appointing a loss adjuster to investigate. The landlord’s insurance officer maintained that the landlord denied liability and said it had not upheld her complaint. The insurer said it would advise her of this, but that if she made a formal claim, it would appoint a loss adjuster to look at the evidence and review as an independent party.
  4. In her communication with us, the resident set out that the landlord had not provided suitable compensation. She wanted it to award this for the inconvenience, distress, loss of amenity and loss of enjoyment of the property, as well as hotel costs amounting to £598.89, and damage to her personal belongings. She also wanted it to apologise for the way it dealt with her initial concerns and complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that this situation impacted her family’s health and wellbeing. We do not doubt her comments; however, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, and we cannot award damages in the same way that may be achieved through the courts as a personal injury claim. We have considered any general distress and inconvenience caused by any failings by the landlord.
  2. The resident wants the landlord to compensate her for damage to her personal belongings. These matters are best suited to an insurance claim. We note that the resident pursued an insurance claim following the complaint and it is unclear whether the insurer has provided the outcome of the claim. Whilst we are unable to make a direct finding of liability, we will still investigate how the landlord managed the resident’s complaint about property damage, as well as its response to reports of any associated repairs or defects. If we find failings, we can make orders and recommendations of how this should be put right.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure of the property, including the internal structure, pipework and installations for supplying water and electricity. The resident is responsible for reporting repair issues to the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s Housing Repairs guide states it would attend emergency repairs within 2 hours to make safe. It would attend urgent repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. It would complete more complex work under its planned repair timescale of 60 working days. It is responsible for communal pipework and utilities in buildings it owns, including pipework running through leasehold properties.
  3. The Temporary Accommodation in Emergencies procedure states that it should contact a resident immediately following an emergency incident, including a flood, to arrange temporary accommodation where needed. It may place residents in accommodation with shared facilities but should consider the possible risk to ensure it makes a suitable placement. It should discuss this internally to determine if the placement is suitable. Where a property is uninhabitable, it should confirm, in writing, that the property is habitable before a resident is permitted to move back.
  4. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint in 2021 states that it had a 2 stage formal complaints process. It would also conduct a stage 1 review following its initial response before moving the complaint to stage 2. It would respond at stage 1 within 21 calendar days, at stage 1 review within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 28 calendar days. If it needed more time to carry out a full investigation, it would contact the resident to agree an extension. It would not consider claims for damages to possessions under its complaints process but as part of an insurance claim.
  5. The landlord’s Refunds, Compensation & Remedies policy states that it would not compensate residents where it is not responsible for damage to personal belongings. In such cases, residents should claim via their contents insurance or through the small claims court. Where damage is caused by its negligence, residents should claim against its public liability insurance. Its insurance claims policy states that its insurance officers handle property insurance claims related to refurbishment following damage to a property. It has public liability insurance to cover claims against it for negligence and damage. Any decision regarding liability would be made by its insurers.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from above and subsequent repairs.

  1. It is evident that the leak from above in August 2021 resulted in significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family, and considerable damage to the property and her belongings. It also impacted her ability to work as a childminder. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately and fairly to the repairs and subsequent complaint.
  2. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord to provide evidence, including communication records with the resident and leaseholder, details related to the cause of the leak, and the repairs it completed. It provided limited evidence related to the repairs considered under the insurance claim and its communication with the resident.
  3. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that it acted appropriately. We have reached a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide relevant information when asked.

Initial reports of a leak

  1. The resident initially reported a leak into her living room on 2 August 2021. The landlord acted reasonably by attending on the same day and identified that it was coming from a leasehold property above. While the operative reported that they “contained” the leak, there is little evidence to show what they did or how they did so, and the resident said that she was left with a bucket to collect the water.
  2. The landlord is not generally responsible for completing repairs to pipework or installations serving only a leasehold property. However, it is responsible for communal pipework and the structure of the building as the freeholder, and the structure of the resident’s property as she was its tenant. We would expect to see evidence to show that it checked that the leak was not caused by a fault that came under its repair obligations. Where it was not responsible for repairing the leak, or where it could not establish this, it should have taken all reasonable steps to access the neighbouring property, contact the leaseholder to notify them of the leak, and investigate.
  3. The landlord has provided very limited evidence related to the initial leak. In its stage 2 complaint response in July 2022, it said that the leaseholder arranged repairs which stopped the leak on 3 August 2021. It has not provided documentary evidence it relied on when saying this. We have not seen evidence of any communication with the leaseholder or agent at the time. There is also no evidence to show it had a clear understanding of what the problem was, or the repairs needed.
  4. The landlord acted within a reasonable timescale to “make safe” the ceiling on 3 August 2021. However, we have not seen evidence to confirm that operatives were aware of the cause of the leak to make an informed decision about whether placing a board over the hole was sufficient. It is of concern that it did not respond to her email on 3 August 2021 to explain the actions it had taken, confirm that the leaseholder had stopped the leak prior to it installing the board, or how it intended to follow-up with the temporary “make safe” repair. It would have been appropriate for it to have contacted her to follow-up on the leak to ensure there was no ongoing issue.
  5. Furthermore, it is noted that the resident provided evidence showcasing that the leak was ongoing following the boarding on 3 August 2021. Due to the limited evidence provided by the landlord, it is unknown if it was aware of the ongoing leak since further action was not taken to deal with the issue.
  6. On 10 August 2021, the resident reported that the leak happened every time it rained, asked when it would put scaffolding up, and requested a callback. We have not seen evidence to show that she reported this as an urgent matter. However, if the leak was worse when it rained, this would indicate an issue with the structure of the building which would fall under the landlord’s responsibility to investigate. It would have been appropriate for it to contact her to identify the nature and severity of the leak to determine the urgency required at the time. It was a failing that it did not do so.
  7. With everything being considered, we are unable to determine that the landlord acted reasonably or appropriately in its handling of the resident’s initial reports. While the leaseholder may have resolved an initial leak at the time, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it took appropriate steps to ensure it was resolved or follow-up with the resident (this is particularly considering the fact that the resident provided evidence showcasing that the leak was ongoing from 3 August 2021 onwards). It is unclear whether the damage to the property could have been foreseen by the landlord.

Ceiling collapse, handling of repairs and communication

  1. There was significant flooding to the resident’s property on 13 August 2021 which caused the ceilings in the living room and bedroom below to collapse. The landlord has provided evidence that it acted appropriately by contacting the leaseholder’s agent who repaired the leak on the day. We have not seen evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took steps to understand the cause of the fault or explain this to the resident at the time.
  2. While the landlord also attended the property on the day and reported clearing debris, its records indicate that it was unable to restore the electricity at the time. The resident has said that she was left waiting and needed to request an electrician. There is no clear evidence to show that the landlord told her that it was not able to reinstate the electrics on the day. In view of the loss of electrics, and the risks in the property due to the collapsed ceilings, it would have been appropriate for it to have offered temporary accommodation on the day. We have considered this in more detail later in the report.
  3. It acted reasonably by reinstating the electricity and providing a dehumidifier on 16 August 2021. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it clearly communicated with the resident regarding how it intended to address the repair issues within the property from the outset. While its records indicate that it had been to the property, we have not seen documentary evidence to show that it contacted the resident to discuss the action it was taking until 31 August 2021, when it said its insurer had instructed it to progress work.
  4. It was reasonable for the landlord to involve its building insurer in its handling of the work as it understood the leak, and subsequent damage, came from a leasehold property above. Landlords should generally have buildings insurance to cover costs associated with damage to the structure of the building because of flooding. Given the nature of the reported damage in the property, we would have expected to see clear evidence in the form of a surveyor’s (or other relevant) report setting out the repairs required to put right the property, and evidence to show that the landlord considered the risks associated with any work, including the presence of asbestos. It has provided minimal evidence of the work it identified as needed or the details of the insurance claim it submitted on 20 August 2021. While it submitted this within a reasonable timeframe, we have not seen evidence to show that it gave the resident a scope of works or any reassurance as to how it would restore the property – this was likely to cause concern.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2021, the landlord confirmed that it was due to start work that day, and its insurance team would keep her updated. Its records indicate that it expected works to take 2 to 3 weeks (completed by 29 September 2021). It is of concern that the only documented records of phone calls with the resident following this were in relation to her rent account, requesting updates as to when she would pay the rent. We have not seen evidence to show that it signposted her to any support despite her concern that she could not work due to the condition of the property and had out of pocket expenses.
  6. The landlord has a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos, as specified by regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It requires the landlord to take reasonable steps to identify, maintain records of, protect residents from exposure to, and execute a management plan for, asbestos. Generally, it should not consider removing asbestos unless the materials were damaged and could not be safely encapsulated as this could be more dangerous than leaving it. The resident raised specific concern about the possibility of damaged asbestos containing materials in the flooring on 25 and 26 September 2021. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it spoke to her and that there was no record of asbestos in the flooring. The resident has maintained that a private contractor checked this and found asbestos.
  7. We have not seen evidence from either party regarding whether there were asbestos containing materials in the flooring or elsewhere in the property. In view of its obligations to manage asbestos, we would have expected to see its investigations, or the information it relied on when stating that there was no asbestos at the time, especially given the ceiling collapse across multiple rooms. It is unclear whether the landlord took adequate steps in line with its obligations. We note that it ultimately removed and reinstated laminate to the flooring in October 2021 which resolved any concerns. However, it is evident that it needed to make a separate claim to do this. It remains unclear why this did not form part of the initial claim or whether it should have considered this sooner.
  8. It is evident that the resident understood that work to sand the living room flooring formed part of the initial insurance claim. The living room flooring was directly above the collapsed ceiling in her foster child’s bedroom, indicating that a significant amount of water passed through it on 13 August 2021. We note that the landlord has not provided a scope of works or listed the repairs that were considered under the initial insurance claim, including any work related to flooring or the communal areas.
  9. While it took steps to level any nails in the flooring on 5 November 2021, it is of concern that the insurance officer said on 16 December 2021 that no work was required as the flooring was “not damaged” in the flood. The landlord subsequently quoted for work to replace the floorboards as an additional insurance claim on 23 December 2021. While the appointment on 8 February 2022 did not go ahead at the resident’s request, it is evident that operatives found the work necessary, and it may have had the opportunity to progress this sooner, or as part of the original claim. The resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing this as a result.
  10. In its response, the landlord said it could not progress work to remove and reinstate plaster on 2 November 2021 due to the level of damp. It added that it could not foresee the length of time it would take for the walls in the property to dry out so that it could progress work. While it is reasonable that it could not complete work to the walls when they were wet, it has not demonstrated that it managed the drying out process effectively.
  11. It acted reasonably by delivering dehumidifiers to the property on 16 August 2021. However, it removed these on 7 September 2021. It provided these again on 22 September 2021 as the walls were still “very damp” and provided 2 further dehumidifiers on 5 October 2021. It then picked 1 up on 5 November 2021 and the others in January 2022. We have not seen evidence to show that it checked the walls were dry before removing the dehumidifiers on 7 September 2021. While it may not have been able to foresee the amount of time it would take for the walls to dry, it is reasonable to conclude that had there been dehumidifiers running in the property between 7 and 22 September 2021, the walls may have dried more quickly, preventing any unnecessary delay.
  12. In addition, on 10 August 2021, the resident notified it that the leak was worse when it rained. While it was reasonable for it to progress the repairs via its building insurance, we would have expected it to investigate and determine whether there were any other sources of water ingress at the time. While investigations may have been impacted by dampness caused by the flood from above, it identified that a leak from a flue pipe to the roof was a possible cause of additional damp staining in December 2021. The landlord would have had the opportunity to resolve this matter sooner had it investigated the resident’s reports fully.
  13. There is a lack of available evidence to demonstrate that the landlord adequately inspected the property to identify the extent of repairs required from the outset. While some repair issues may have become apparent during the drying out process, it did not provide clear information about the work it intended to complete under the initial insurance claim, and it failed to effectively manage the drying out process. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it effectively communicated with the resident which was likely to have had a significant impact on her.

Temporary accommodation and associated costs

  1. The landlord has provided very little evidence of its communication with the resident about temporary accommodation. The resident has said her hotel costs came to £598.89 following the ceiling collapse on 13 August 2021. In its stage 2 complaint response in July 2022, the landlord said it would not pay toward hotel costs because she sourced her own temporary accommodation, whilst remaining in the property, prior to its offer on 16 August 2021. We note that it incorrectly said the ceiling collapse took place on Saturday 14 August 2021 in its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord arranged emergency accommodation for the resident and her family on the day of the ceiling collapse. It attended the property on 13 August 2021, which was a Friday. It was aware of the risk related to the ceiling collapse and that it could not restore the electricity on the day due to the water damage. It had the opportunity to identify the need to provide alternative accommodation and it was a failing that it did not do so, leaving the family, including a foster child placement, in unsafe conditions over the weekend. It has not demonstrated that it acted in line with its procedures.
  3. The landlord did not offer any temporary accommodation until Monday 16 August 2021. While it was appropriate for it to say it would make a referral for temporary accommodation given that it deemed the property “uninhabitable”, it noted that the resident had “refused” and her partner and child had already moved into a hotel. As a foster carer, the resident had certain obligations (aside from being a parent) to ensure that her foster child had a safe physical environment, with specific housing requirements. It is understandable that she felt she had no other choice but to source a hotel over the weekend in view of the condition of the property, the safety of her foster placement, and the landlord’s failure to offer this itself on the Friday.
  4. The resident has explained that the landlord subsequently offered a room in a hostel which she did not think suitable for her foster child. We have not seen clear information regarding the temporary accommodation offered and it may have been suitable for a foster child on a temporary basis. However, the landlord has not documented that it adequately considered that the resident had a foster child or discussed the possible risks (internally or with relevant parties, including her support worker under its role as a local authority) to ensure the placement was suitable in the circumstances.
  5. We have not seen evidence that the landlord took any steps to understand why the resident refused the temporary accommodation offer until 13 September 2021 (during a phone call). This was despite it being aware that she had paid out of pocket expenses. It should have taken steps from the outset to understand the reasons for her refusal, considered a different placement or explained its position regarding the suitability of its offer, and explained any possible consequences of not accepting the offer, including information about her liability for ongoing rent of hotel costs. It did not provide adequate information so that she could make an informed decision at the time.
  6. Generally, if a resident needs to move to temporary accommodation where it is unsafe to remain in their property, they are responsible for making their continued rent payments. The landlord would cover the costs of the temporary accommodation it offers. It would not generally be responsible for costs associated with temporary accommodation if a resident has arranged this without its agreement to pay for this in advance but it would be expected to consider this.
  7. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not offer temporary accommodation on the Friday when it became aware of the flood. The landlord’s decision not to consider contributing towards the resident’s hotel costs, or offering compensation for its failings, was not fair or reasonable. While she may have remained in the property to facilitate repairs, it deemed the property uninhabitable, and was of the understanding that she should not reside in the property as a result. It has not provided sufficient evidence to document when it considered the property to be safe for occupation. In view of the findings above, we order the landlord to pay the resident £598.89 compensation toward her hotel costs from 13 August 2021 if she provides evidence of those costs.

Damage to belongings, loss of earnings and public liability claim

  1. Residents are expected to have home contents insurance to protect their belongings from damage such as flooding. As a childminder and foster carer, working in the property, it would be the resident’s responsibility to ensure she had relevant insurance cover for loss of earnings where appropriate. Landlords do not generally consider claims for loss of earnings or damage through their complaints processes as these matters are best suited to be considered by insurers. Where a resident believes the landlord is liable due to negligence, it can consider a public liability claim. An insurance claim will establish negligence and / or liability to pay.
  2. It is unclear whether the resident had home contents or other relevant insurance at the time of the ceiling collapse. In view of her position that the landlord was liable for the damage to her belongings and earnings, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide a public liability claim form. She provided details of her claim on 27 February 2023. The landlord’s insurance officer told her that it did not accept liability. It also told its insurer that it denied liability on the basis that the leak was from the leasehold property above, and that it had not upheld the complaint at the chief executive level.
  3. While we have found failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord took all reasonable steps to ensure that the initial leak was resolved, it is beyond our remit to determine whether it was liable for the damage to the resident’s belongings. This is especially so given that the water escape occurred in a leasehold property above.  The landlord committed to considering any public liability claim the resident made within its responses to the complaint and it is unclear if this has happened. Any decisions regarding the landlord’s liability should be made by the insurer rather than the landlord.
  4. In November 2023, communication records indicate that the insurer said it would appoint a loss adjuster to complete an independent review of the evidence if the resident pursued a “formal” claim. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to why the claim was not considered “formal”, and whether the landlord’s insurer has since made a “formal” decision regarding the landlord’s liability based on evidence related the claim. In view of this, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to confirm if its insurer has made a formal decision on the claim and to refer the matter back to its insurer if they have not considered this formally. If the insurer denies the landlord’s liability, the resident may wish to seek legal advice, if she has not already done so.

Summary

  1. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from above and subsequent repairs. It has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it fully investigated the initial leak(s), communicated effectively with her, or offered any reassurance as to how and when it would put right the damage in the property.
  2. The landlord initially failed to offer temporary accommodation or communicate with the resident effectively regarding her reasons for refusal of its later offer. We have also seen evidence of failings in its handling of the repairs which caused delays that were within its control. In view of the failings identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay financial compensation to the resident to recognise the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to her as a result.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The resident initially asked the landlord to “escalate” a complaint immediately on 13 August 2021 following the ceiling collapse. She then raised a complaint on 16 August 2021. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2021, which was 26 days following her initial request and outside of its policy timescales. It would have been appropriate for it to have acknowledged this delay.
  2. It is our view that residents should be able to raise a formal complaint even if an insurance claim is also being made, particularly if they have raised additional issues other than a request to be compensated for damaged belongings. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns related to its communication or actions. At this stage, only the repairs formed part of any insurance claim, and it did not provide a suitable response. It also failed to provide information about how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 September 2021. It provided a stage 1 review response on 5 October 2021, which was within 10 working days. Our Complaint Handling Code (2020) stated that a complaint must be moved to the next stage of a landlord’s complaints process if a resident remains dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. While it responded within timescales, the additional “stage” in the complaints process at the time was unreasonable and extended the overall timeframe of the complaint.
  4. In addition, the response at this stage failed to comment on the resident’s concerns about its handling of the matter and maintained that these were being handled by its insurance team. It did not seek to address the concerns that were not related to insurance, including a lack of response, her rent account and request for a rent reduction, whether the insurance claim was covering the flooring, or matters related to damage to the communal area. The same staff member also issued both stage 1 responses, indicating a lack of impartiality in its handling of the complaint.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to the chief executive stage (stage 2) on 16 October 2021. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 7 July 2022, over 8 months later. While it recognised the delay in providing the response, apologised, and offered £75 compensation, it did not offer any explanation for the delay or keep the resident suitably updated during this period.
  6. The landlord partially upheld the complaint on the basis that it did not provide an adequate response at stage 1 of its complaints process. It was appropriate for it to recognise this, however it did not recognise the impact of this failing on the resident, offer suitable redress, or explain how it would prevent similar failings in the future. The response also failed to address concerns about her liability to pay rent for inaccessible rooms and the quality of work completed in the property – it told her it would pass these concerns to the complaints team to address in January 2022.
  7. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and made orders below for the landlord to act on. We have not made any specific learning orders in this case as we previously issued a special investigation report into the landlord in October 2023.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from above and subsequent repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.

b.     Pay the resident £750 compensation comprised of:

  1. £550 in recognition of the time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failings in the handling of the reports of a leak from above, and subsequent repairs.
  2. £200 in recognition of the time and trouble, and inconvenience caused to her by its poor complaint handling. This includes its previous offer of £75.

c.      Ask the resident to provide evidence of the hotel costs from 13 August 2021 that she said amounted to £598.89. It should pay compensation of this value within 2 weeks of receiving evidence from her.

d.     Contact the resident to confirm if its insurer has made a formal decision on the claim and refer the matter back to its insurer to do so if they have not considered this formally.