Harlow District Council (202420764)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420764

Harlow District Council

27 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about recurring leaks into the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. She acquired the lease in 2013. The property is a 1-bedroom, ground-floor flat in a low-rise block. Some of the surrounding homes are also owned by leaseholders. The landlord is a local authority. A management company runs the block on the landlord’s behalf. For readability, this report will refer to ‘the landlord’ unless additional clarification is needed.
The resident’s complaint relates to recurring leaks. There have been multiple leaks into the property over the years. Some of them have caused a significant amount of damage. The resident feels many of the leaks stemmed from the flat directly above the property. She feels her upstairs neighbour does not maintain their flat properly and the landlord has not taken sufficient action to protect her.
In May 2024 the resident told the landlord a leak had damaged her kitchen. Several days later, the landlord advised her it had contacted 2 flats directly above the property. It said the owners had been asked to check their internal pipework for leaks. Subsequently, a leak was found in the flat that was furthest away from the property. The resident liaised with the owner and their plumber. She told the landlord the leak was small and could not have caused significant damage. She felt there must be another issue in her immediate neighbour’s flat.
The resident continued to contact the landlord. She reported further damage to the property. She sought assurances about her closest neighbour’s actions. She said the insurance company would not begin the repairs until the leak was addressed. The landlord felt it had already been repaired. In early July 2024 there was a leak from the upstairs flat. It damaged the property’s hallway and bathroom. The resident complained soon afterwards. She wanted the neighbour’s home to be repaired and certified by a professional operative.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response later that month. It said it had intervened when necessary and the resident’s request was disproportionate. It did not uphold the complaint. The resident confirmed she was still unhappy. She felt more leaks were bound to occur. She did not agree the landlord had handled matters well. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in August 2024. It said it had found some repair issues in the immediate neighbour’s home. It said it would ensure they were addressed to a good standard. It promised to keep the resident updated about its progress. It partly upheld the complaint due to communication failures. It did not award the resident any compensation.
We spoke to the resident in February 2025. She said her home was still being repaired. She confirmed the works were being arranged by the landlord’s insurer. She said the landlord had not updated her about the neighbour’s repairs. However, there had not been any further leaks from the upstairs flat. In summary, she felt the landlord showed a lack of sympathy and did not do its best to help her. She wanted it to improve its performance going forwards. From her comments, we understood the block has a communal insurance policy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence confirms she has been impacted by numerous leaks over the years. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any injuries or damage to the resident’s personal items.
The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the length of time that has passed since the events in question. Residents should also bring their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe (usually within 12 months after the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure). The resident complained to the landlord in May 2024. In line with the above approach, any leaks that occurred before May 2023 are out of scope for our investigation.
The resident has other concerns about the landlord’s activities. She feels it has not maintained the block’s gutters even though she pays a relevant service charge. In October 2024, she asked the landlord for a service charge refund. It is unclear how the landlord responded to her request. The resident made the request around 2 months after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response. The response did not address any guttering or service charge issues.
In general, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to our involvement. We also need sufficient information to make a full and fair assessment of any complaint points. Given the above, the resident’s gutter and service charge concerns are also out of scope. If she is still unhappy, the resident can bring them to the Ombudsman after they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about recurring leaks into the property

On 16 May 2024 the resident noticed water damage to her kitchen ceiling. The parties agree she notified the landlord about a leak on the following day. The resident says she contacted the landlord and its management company several times by phone and email. There is evidence the landlord raised an internal enquiry at this point. However, it supplied limited information about its actions at this time. It should be able to show how it handled the resident’s report. The lack of information is concerning and points to record keeping problems.
The landlord supplied a copy of its leaseholder handbook. It shows the landlord is responsible for maintaining the block’s communal pipework. Leaseholders are obliged to repair and maintain the pipework in their own flats. The handbook says leaseholders should notify the landlord about any leaks that are its responsibility. Otherwise, they should call “a reputable plumber”. It does not say what to do in the event of a leak from a neighbouring home. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that leaseholders are likely to alert the landlord. As a result, the landlord should have a relevant procedure in place to help them.
Ultimately, the landlord should be able to promptly guide any leaseholders who find themselves in this situation. This may involve contacting other block residents about the reported leak. There is no indication the landlord adopted a similar approach in this case. In mitigation, the resident may have known what to do given the amount of previous leaks. Still, it was reasonable for her to expect to receive some help from the landlord. Overall, the landlord has not shown that it responded effectively to her initial report. This is concerning in the circumstances.
The parties exchanged emails on 21 May 2024. The landlord asked if the leak was ongoing and whether the resident had contacted an upstairs neighbour about it. It was appropriate for the landlord to monitor the situation. However, its email did not include any clear guidance for the resident. There is no indication it gave her any other advice beforehand. It could have explained the parties’ responsibilities and any next steps. The landlord may have missed an opportunity to resolve matters promptly. Its email also shows it put the onus on the resident to progress matters. For the reasons outlined above, its approach was unreasonable at this point.
The resident replied that the leak was ongoing and she was reluctant to contact the neighbour in question. She said relations between them were strained due to the amount of leaks and damage that had impacted the resident over the years. She felt the neighbour was largely responsible for these issues. She felt the landlord may be in a better position to progress matters with the neighbour. Her preference was understandable given the existing tensions. Subsequent events show the landlord acted on the resident’s request.
The landlord updated the resident on the following day. It said it had contacted 2 flats that were directly above the property. In addition, the owners had been asked to check their internal pipework. It also said the landlord would complete its own investigation if the neighbours did not find any leaks. It did not explain why it expected the neighbours to take the first step. This information may have put matters in context for the resident. Based on the period between 17 and 22 May 2024, it took the landlord around 3 working days (either side of a weekend) to explain its approach and contact the neighbours. Its communication was inadequate and it was not sufficiently solution-focused. Given the ongoing leak, it is reasonable to conclude this was distressing for the resident.
The parties exchanged further emails around a week later. The resident said the property’s electrics had been damaged and she was unable to use her shower. She also said a light and cooker hood were impacted. The landlord subsequently relayed some advice from its plumbing specialist. It attributed the leak to a waste pipe that belonged to one of the neighbours. Based on the resident’s comments, it felt the neighbour must have repaired the pipework. It was reasonable for the landlord to obtain advice from a relevant professional.
However, the landlord did not directly ask the resident if the leak had stopped. The resident says she disputed the landlord’s interpretation on the following day. She also says she told it the leak was still ongoing. The landlord did not provide any records about this interaction. In the absence of any information to the contrary, we relied on the resident’s version of events. Ultimately, the landlord should have clarified whether the leak was ongoing or not. Its assumption was unfair and its approach was unreasonable at this point.
There was another email exchange on 3 June 2024. The resident said the leak had caused more damage to her home. The landlord replied it had contacted both of her upstairs neighbours again. It also said it had asked them to provide a plumber’s report. This was around 10 working days after the resident reported the leak. It is reasonable to conclude it could have asked for this information earlier. The landlord arguably showed a lack of urgency given the reported damage to the property.
Given the contents of the parties’ previous email exchange, the evidence shows the landlord contributed to a short delay of around 3 working days. This is based on the period between 29 May 2024 (when the landlord said the leak must have been fixed) and 3 June 2024. It is reasonable to conclude some of the damage to the property during this period may have been avoidable. It is also reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s handling compounded the resident’s distress.
Over the next few days, a small leak was found in the flat that was furthest away from the property. On 7 June 2024 the resident relayed advice from the relevant neighbour’s plumber to the landlord. She said the small leak may have contributed to the damage in her home. However, it was not consistent with the amount of water that had leaked into the property. She felt the source of the leak was in her nearest neighbour’s flat. She wanted to know what action this neighbour had taken to investigate their pipework. Her other key points were:
1. Water was spreading across her ceiling and she was worried about her electrics.
2. The property smelled damp and she had removed mould from cupboards.
3. The insurance company would not start repairs until the leak was fixed.
4. The situation was urgent.
It is unclear if the landlord responded to the resident’s comments. The resident subsequently sent similar emails to the landlord on 10 and 19 June 2024. There is no indication the landlord replied to her initial chaser. It did reply to her final email. It felt the problem had been rectified when the small leak was repaired. It said it would take time for the resident’s home to dry out. It also said she should contact the insurance company “unless she still had water ingress”. It did not respond to her concerns about her immediate neighbour’s actions. It is unclear if the landlord had obtained a plumbing report from the neighbour. Overall, the evidence points to problems with the landlord’s monitoring of the situation.
It should not have been necessary for the resident to chase the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude this caused her additional inconvenience. Her emails show she was already distressed due to the situation in the property. They referenced potential health and safety issues linked to water damage. Ultimately, the landlord showed an inappropriate lack of engagement at this point. Its approach was unfair and can be reasonably perceived as dismissive.
The resident continued to chase the landlord subsequently. On 25 June 2024 the landlord asked her if the leak was ongoing. From the evidence provided, it is unclear how the resident responded to this question. Two days later, the landlord asked its maintenance team to check its own pipework. Its internal correspondence shows the maintenance team was reluctant to comply. It felt the involved leaseholders should have supplied their own plumbers’ reports first. The landlord replied it had requested this information “numerous times” but it had not been provided. Ultimately, it raised an inspection order to rule out any plumbing issues of its own. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord.
The resident says that, several days before the above interaction with its maintenance team, the landlord told her it had already completed its own inspection of the block’s communal pipework. She also says it promised to supply an inspection report but it did not do this. It is noted a prior inspection was not mentioned in the landlord’s interaction with its maintenance team. This suggests the resident may have been given incorrect information. In the absence of any documentary evidence, we have been unable to reach a finding in relation to this.
The property incurred further water damage on 7 July 2024. The resident says she was alerted to a problem by her nearest neighbour’s private tenant. Having returned home, she found her hallway was “soaked” and the bathroom was “flooded”. She also says some of her personal belongings were damaged. In addition, she visited the upstairs flat with the private tenant and found it was also water damaged. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was distressing.
The resident complained to the landlord around 8 July 2024. She said she had been “plagued” by a series of “dangerous leaks” since 2021. She also said her home had been repeatedly damaged and she felt unsafe. She felt her closest neighbour was largely responsible. This was on the basis they did not adequately maintain their own flat. She wanted the landlord to appoint a leak detection specialist and have them inspect the neighbour’s property. She felt the neighbour’s flat should be repaired and certified by a professional. She also felt the neighbour and the landlord should apologise to her.
On 10 July 2024 the landlord inspected its own pipework. This was 9 working days after it raised an inspection order. This timeframe was consistent with its standard repair timescale (20 working days). The landlord’s repairs policy shows it should complete urgent repairs within 5 working days. In the circumstances, the landlord could have reasonably expedited the inspection in line with its urgent timescale. Its approach did not match the resident’s sense of urgency.
On 23 July 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said there were separate leaks in May and July 2024. It also said it had liaised with the relevant parties in relation to the initial incident. However, the resident had liaised directly with her closest neighbour about the subsequent leak. It said both leaks were resolved and there were no issues with the landlord’s own pipework. In addition, the nearest neighbour had supplied a plumber’s report and the landlord was satisfied with it. The landlord also said:
1. It was not proportionate to appoint a leak detection specialist.
2. The resident’s request for certification was not in line with standard practice.
3. It would remind the relevant leaseholders about their repair obligations.
4. It could ask one of its surveyors to inspect the resident’s home.
5. Any damaged items should be reported to the landlord’s insurance team.
6. It had intervened when necessary and would continue to assist the resident.
7. If a persistent source of leaks was found, it would take action against the responsible party.
The landlord took some positive steps in its response. It was reasonable and proactive to offer the resident a surveyor’s inspection. Given her damaged items, it was appropriate to signpost her to its insurance team. This approach is consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations. However, the landlord did not acknowledge any of its previous delays or communication issues. Since it did not attempt to put them right for the resident, its response was unreasonable.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on the same day. She said it had overlooked previous leaks from the flat above. She referenced visible quality issues with central heating works that her close neighbour had recently completed. She reiterated her view that the small leak could not have caused a significant amount of damage to her home. The resident’s other key points were:
1. She disputed that her nearest neighbour had arranged for a professional to complete the required repairs.
2. She felt more leaks would occur unless the neighbour replaced some old pipework in their flat.
3. She accepted the landlord’s offer of a surveyor’s inspection.
4. Under the lease, the landlord had powers to complete its own repairs to the neighbour’s flat. It had not taken sufficient action to protect her.
5. Due to conditions in the property, she felt like a “squatter” in her own home.
6. The landlord lacked courtesy and respect. Its responses were not timely.
The landlord completed an inspection a week later on 30 July 2024. It visited the property and the upstairs flat. It felt the damage it observed related to separate leaks. It said the second leak related to the immediate neighbour’s bath. It noted some pipework in the area had been repaired with silicone. It suspected the neighbour had told the resident that they replaced this pipework. The landlord noted other repair issues in the upstairs flat. It said the neighbour should be asked to address them. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the upstairs flat during its visit to the resident’s home.
The landlord had previously assured the resident there were no plumbing issues in the upstairs flat. It said it had obtained a plumber’s report from the neighbour and it was satisfied with it. This assertion appears to conflict with the landlord’s inspection findings. The inspection identified several issues. They include what appears to be a low quality pipework repair. From the evidence the landlord provided, we were unable to confirm if it received a plumber’s report as stated. This is concerning and points to inappropriate record keeping by the landlord.
There is evidence that indicates the landlord did not receive a plumber’s report from the neighbour. As mentioned, in late June 2024 it told its maintenance team it had requested reports “numerous times” but they had not been supplied. It is noted the resident’s home incurred additional damage around a week after the landlord’s comment. Whether it received a report or not, it is reasonable to conclude the inspection findings undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s overall handling. This is because her concerns about a leak and maintenance issues in the upstairs flat were ultimately shown to be warranted, despite the landlord’s prior assertions to the contrary.
The resident updated the landlord on 22 August 2024. She wanted it to complete its own repairs to the upstairs flat and charge the neighbour. She cited relevant provisions in the landlord’s leaseholder handbook. She felt the neighbour had not taken any action to address the repair issues the landlord identified during its inspection. She said recurring leaks had reduced her enjoyment of the property over the years. The resident’s other key points were:
1. Due to damaged electrics, the property had no lighting, oven or shower.
2. A contractor had confirmed the property needed extensive repair works.
3. Her “brand new bathroom” needed to be removed to facilitate repairs.
4. Her kitchen needed to be removed and thrown away.
5. Repairs would not begin until the neighbour had replaced their pipework.
On 27 August 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint based on communication failures. However, it felt it had largely taken appropriate action to resolve matters overall. The landlord said it had completed its own investigation when it was notified about the leaks. It also said this investigation took place in May 2024. In addition, it had focused on areas the landlord was responsible for. The landlord said the initial leak had been repaired in a timely manner. Its other points were:
1. The landlord had attempted to mediate between the parties. It had contacted the resident’s nearest neighbour to remind them about their obligations under the lease.
2. The neighbour had confirmed that “all works” were completed by a qualified plumber. They provided a plumber’s report which confirmed their flat was free from leaks.
3. During its visit on 30 July 2024, the landlord confirmed the upstairs flat was free from leaks. However, “some minor maintenance works were recommended”.
4. The landlord would ask the neighbour to complete the identified works within 4 weeks. It would reinspect their flat to ensure they had been completed to a good standard.
5. The landlord’s powers were limited unless or until there was damage to the block’s “structure, fabric or primary services”. It would review the relevant lease agreements to understand what options were available if the neighbour did not complete its recommended works.
6. The landlord had reviewed its previous communications with the resident. It could see there were some delays. It was sorry the resident was impacted. It would ensure it kept her updated about its follow-up actions.
The landlord recognised it was responsible for some communication failures. It rightly apologised for them. Its relevant compensation policy (effective June 2023) shows it can pay discretionary compensation “where circumstances dictate [this] is the right thing to do”. The document does not include any guidance about proportionate award levels. Given the extent of the landlord’s failures and their corresponding impact on the resident, it should have awarded her some compensation to put things right. This would have been consistent with the approach in its compensation policy. Its apology was insufficient and unfair in the circumstances.
On 28 August 2024 the resident’s coworker contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They felt the neighbour was “getting preferential treatment”. They said it had taken the landlord 4 weeks to set them a deadline following its inspection. They felt the neighbour had been given a “grace period” and they should have completed the works already. They said the resident was willing to pay for the neighbour’s repairs. They also said she had injured herself several times as the property had no lighting. There is no indication the landlord replied to the resident or her coworker. This is concerning given the contents of the coworker’s email.
The coworker’s update warranted some kind of response. It included concerns around bias and a reported injury. The Ombudsman expects landlords to respond to these issues. Allegations of bias/unfavourable treatment should be investigated through a landlord’s complaints process. Failure to do this can compound a resident’s view that they are being treated unfairly. If a resident holds a landlord responsible for an injury, the landlord should signpost them to its insurance team or process. If it was worried about sharing information with an unauthorised party, the landlord could have explained this to the resident. By not responding, it arguably showed a lack of care. Ultimately, the landlord did not engage appropriately and its approach was unfair.
The resident chased the landlord on 2 September 2024. She largely reiterated the coworker’s comments. She said the landlord had not responded to her coworker. She also said she had injured herself again. In addition, she told it there was damp and mould in the property and it was affecting her health. She said the neighbour was the “root cause of all the hold-ups”. She also said the landlord had failed her “time and time again”. Her frustration was understandable in the circumstances. The landlord has supplied limited information about subsequent events.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in January 2025. She did not know if her neighbour had completed the landlord’s recommended repairs. The evidence suggests the landlord did not keep her updated as promised. She said she had reported her injuries to the landlord’s insurer. However, the policy did not cover her damaged personal items. She said she had her own contents insurance but she had not made a claim due to a £500 excess. She also said she was “out of pocket” through no fault of her own. Overall, she felt the landlord had put the onus on her to progress matters. As mentioned, there is evidence that supports this assertion.
In summary, there is no indication the landlord was directly responsible for either of the leaks in question. There is evidence that its handling may have contributed to their overall duration. On that basis, the landlord may have contributed to the level of damage in the resident’s home. It has not shown that it responded effectively to her initial report. It did not match her sense of urgency at various points. It unfairly assumed that a leak must have been repaired. The landlord showed an inappropriate lack of engagement at different points. Its communication was inadequate and it was not sufficiently solution-focused. Its approach can be reasonably perceived as dismissive at times.
The landlord was unable to evidence some of its key assertions to the resident. There is no evidence to show it completed a pipework inspection before July 2024. There is little evidence to show it obtained a plumber’s report from the upstairs neighbour. There is no evidence it kept the resident updated about its follow-up actions in relation to the neighbour. It promised to do this in its stage 2 response. It made this commitment based on its previous communication failures. The resident has significant concerns about the potential for further leaks. The evidence shows the landlord’s overall handling compounded her distress. It is reasonable to conclude it also damaged the landlord and tenant relationship. The landlord’s apology was inadequate given what went wrong.
Given its series of failures and their impact on the resident, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman has ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. In line with this guidance, it is consistent with circumstances where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord supplied a copy of its relevant compensation policy. However, it did not include any information about proportionate award levels. We were unable to find a more relevant policy document in our own records or on the landlord’s website.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord around 8 July 2024. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 23 July 2024. This was around 11 working days later. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (effective April 2024) shows it should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. The evidence points to a short delay. Given its duration, an apology would have been sufficient to address it. The landlord did not acknowledge a delay or attempt to put things right for the resident. This was unreasonable. The landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every investigation. This approach will allow it to address any procedural delays or failures accordingly.
There were other issues with the landlord’s response. It included incorrect information about the date of the resident’s initial report. This suggests the landlord had difficulty interpreting its own records at times. It could have asked the resident about the timeline of events during its stage 1 investigation. The error points to an unreasonable lack of thoroughness. The resident highlighted the landlord’s error in her subsequent escalation request. It is reasonable to conclude it undermined her confidence in the landlord’s stage 1 response.
There were also problems with the landlord’s tone. It did not show any obvious empathy for the resident’s situation. It said, “Water penetration into properties can sometimes take longer than expected to dry and we … suggest you continue to monitor and let us know if it improves”. This wording caused frustration for the resident. In her escalation request, she said it was “patronising” and she did not “appreciate being mansplained”. She also said the landlord had downplayed the severity and impact of the second leak in July 2024. Ultimately, the landlord’s approach was distressing for her. The landlord should have reasonably adopted a more considerate tone in its response.
In her complaint, the resident made detailed references to previous leaks from 2021 onwards. Although it acknowledged them, the landlord did not engage with her comments. Its complaints policy says it “cannot investigate” issues that occurred more than 12 months prior to a complaint. The landlord should have explained this to the resident. Given the clear significance that was attached to her comments, it was unfair not to engage with them without explanation. The resident reiterated the historical aspect in her escalation request. She said the history of previous leaks should be taken into account and investigated. The wording she used shows she was frustrated by having to repeat herself. This is understandable.
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 July 2024. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 27 August 2024. This was 25 working days later. The landlord’s complaints policy shows it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. It also says it will update the resident if it needs more time. Although there was a short delay, the evidence suggests the landlord did keep the resident updated. Nevertheless, it could have reasonably apologised for the delay in its response. This is further evidence the landlord did not consider its own complaint handling or the resident’s complaint journey.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the date error in its previous response. It rightly apologised for any confusion caused. However, it repeated its previous failure to engage with the historical aspect of the resident’s complaint. The applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was published in February 2024. Section 6.7 says “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition”. The resident’s definition involved a series of dangerous leaks from 2021 onwards. The Code confirms it was inappropriate to overlook the historical aspect (as well as unfair). Given the comments in the resident’s escalation request, the landlord’s stage 2 investigation lacked an appropriate degree of thoroughness. It is reasonable to conclude its approach was distressing for the resident.
As mentioned in the previous section, the landlord made a number of commitments to the resident in its stage 2 response. It said it would reinspect the neighbour’s flat, check the lease agreements, and keep the resident updated. There is no evidence to show it completed these actions. This indicates there could be a wider problem with its complaint handling. It should be able to track any agreed complaint actions and monitor them through to completion. The evidence points to an inappropriate lack of monitoring and follow-up on the landlord’s part. In the circumstances, it was unlikely to resolve the resident’s complaint satisfactorily through its own internal complaints procedure.
In summary, there were various issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. It lacked empathy for the resident’s situation. Its tone at stage 1 was concerning. It did not acknowledge some complaint handling delays. It repeatedly failed to address a crucial aspect of the resident’s complaint. It showed a lack of thoroughness. The evidence suggests it did not follow up agreed complaint actions. Its complaint handling was unfair, unreasonable and inappropriate at times. This caused additional frustration for the resident. Given these failures, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. We have awarded compensation in line with our guidance on remedies for circumstances where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about recurring leaks into the property.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant member of its executive team to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 4 weeks.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,200 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her concerns about recurring leaks.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
If it has not done this already, the landlord must update the resident about the actions it agreed to complete in its stage 2 response. It should confirm whether it reinspected the neighbour’s home, when this happened, and if it was satisfied with its findings. It should also share the findings from its review of the relevant lease documents. The landlord must share its update with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord must contact the resident to gather information about her concerns around “preferential treatment” for the neighbour. If she requests this, it must raise a new complaint to investigate the matter. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord must conduct an internal review into the key issues highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks it should present its findings to its senior leadership/executive team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The landlord should also cascade its improvements to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The review should include:
1. The steps the landlord will take to ensure it can respond swiftly and effectively to reports of leaks from properties owned by leaseholders. This is because the evidence shows its handling contributed to the overall duration of at least 1 leak in this case.
2. The steps the landlord will take to ensure its staff can respond to allegations of bias/unfavourable treatment and reports of personal injury accordingly. This is because the evidence suggests it failed to address the resident’s related concerns in this case. In relation to allegations, the landlord can refer to the Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Attitudes, respect and rights” report for guidance.
3. The steps the landlord will take to ensure it learns from the complaint handling issues that were identified in this case. This is because the evidence shows its responses added to the resident’s distress.