We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Barnet (202323383)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323383

London Borough of Barnet

3 April 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of water ingress at the property.

Background

  1. The resident held a secure tenancy.
  2. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident suffers from chronic asthma, anxiety and depression. She lived in the property with her young daughter.
  3. The resident reported water ingress from an upstairs flat into her bathroom in March 2023. The landlord logged this on 15 March 2023, and performed an inspection on 4 April 2023. It inspected both the resident’s property and the upstairs neighbour’s property but was unable to find the cause of the ingress.
  4. The resident reported the water ingress again on 20 April 2023. The landlord attended on 20 May 2023, also visiting 2 upstairs properties in an attempt to locate the cause of the ingress. It was unable to locate any potential causes and believed that a neighbour may have resolved this.
  5. The resident complained on 2 August 2023. She said that, despite reporting water ingress in March 2023, this was still unresolved. She said this had damaged her bathroom and was causing her distress. The landlord attended on 10 August 2023 and located the cause of the water ingress. It found that the upstairs neighbour had a leaking disabled toilet.  
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2023. It partly upheld the complaint and apologised for the length of time it had taken to locate the cause of the water ingress. It said that the upstairs neighbour was a leaseholder, and it was not therefore responsible for repairing the leaking toilet. It said it had contacted the neighbour to inform them they must repair this. The landlord said it had raised a job to come and inspect the resident’s bathroom for damages.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 23 August 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports, particularly it taking 2 weeks to initially come out and inspect. She also referenced a missed appointment on 9 August 2023. She said the water ingress was still ongoing and was destroying her bathroom.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 September 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It awarded £10 for the missed 9 August 2023 appointment (that its contractor rearranged to 10 August 2023) plus a goodwill gesture of £90 for the delay, distress and anxiety caused by the delayed repair.
  9. The landlord apologised that the neighbour had not yet completed the repair and said that it would be sending a letter to them informing them of their obligations. It said this would give them 48 hours to make contact or provide proof of the repair otherwise it would be taking further action against them. It also committed to undertake a further inspection of the resident’s bathroom once the neighbour completed their repairs.
  10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 9 October 2023 asking us to consider her complaint. She said the leak remained ongoing and had destroyed her bathroom. She said that, despite the landlord’s letter, the neighbour had taken no further action.
  11. The resident told the Ombudsman in April 2025 that she had moved out of the property. She said to resolve her complaint she would like an apology from the landlord and compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of water ingress

  1. The landlord’s repair policy has several different timescales for repairs. At P1 and P2 – which are both ’emergency jobs’ – the landlord says it will make jobs safe within 4 hours and complete works within 24 hours. At P3 (responsive repairs), it says it will attend and complete works within 15 working days. At P4 (programmed works), it says it will complete these within 25 working days inclusive of its inspection. For P5 (planned works) – which it describes as for larger, and complex works – it says it will complete the necessary repairs within 60 working days.
  2. The landlord undertook an inspection within 14 working days of the resident’s first report. This was in line with the timescales specified in the landlord’s repair policy for responsive repairs. The resident mentioned she was unhappy with the timescale of the initial inspection. However, the landlord acted in line with its policy. She also advised that the landlord asked her if water was coming through the electrics, suggesting it appropriately considered the priority for the repair.
  3. The landlord’s first inspection on 4 April 2023 found evidence of ongoing water ingress at the resident’s flat, stating that this was ‘caused by leaking from the above flat’. The landlord then inspected the upstairs flat but could not find the cause of the water ingress. The landlord’s evidence does not demonstrate that it took any further action following this. It is unclear why the landlord did not follow this up with the resident and this represented a failure to properly investigate the resident’s reports.
  4. The resident reported the leak again on 20 April 2023 and the landlord took a further 20 working days to re-inspect. In order to fully investigate the cause of the water ingress, the landlord needed to arrange access to 2 separate upstairs neighbours’ properties. This was therefore a reasonable timeframe for the landlord to inspect.
  5. Following this inspection, the landlord believed that repairs in an upstairs neighbour’s flat may have fixed the cause of the water ingress. As the landlord saw no evidence of ingress at the resident’s property or water escape in neighbouring properties, this was a reasonable conclusion.
  6. The landlord asked the resident to inform it if the water ingress continued. The evidence demonstrates the resident did not contact it to report the return of water ingress until 2 August 2023. Given the lack of reports made by the resident before this point, the Ombudsman would not have expected the landlord to take further action throughout the prior 2-and-a-half-month period.
  7. The landlord’s contractor was originally due to inspect on 9 August 2023 but had to rearrange this for the following day. The landlord later apologised for this and offered the resident £10 compensation. Given the minimal delay and the level of time and trouble caused to the resident, the £10 compensation was fair for this.
  8. The landlord’s third inspection on 10 August 2023 located the cause of the water ingress as the upstairs neighbour’s disabled toilet. The landlord’s contractor attempted to repair this during the inspection but did not have the correct parts. It was good practice for the landlord to attempt to complete a repair to rectify the water ingress, despite the neighbour being a leaseholder.
  9. The Ombudsman recognises that if a leak is coming from inside a leaseholder’s property, it is usually the leaseholder’s responsibility to fix. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to communicate with the neighbouring property and take any necessary steps to ensure the neighbour resolved the fault. Regardless of who needed to physically complete the repair, the landlord still had a responsibility to ensure that there was no delay and the resident did not experience further inconvenience.
  10. By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the landlord had been aware of the cause of the water ingress for 6 weeks. However, it has provided no evidence demonstrating the steps it took to ensure the upstairs leaseholder completed the works. Between the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord has provided no evidence of contact with the neighbour, or of its strategy for ensuring the neighbour completed the required works. This was unreasonable, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  11. As part of its September 2023 stage 2 complaint response, the landlord committed to provide the resident with updates on the progress of the repair. The landlord has not offered evidence to demonstrate it fulfilled this commitment. There is no evidence of further action in enforcing the repair taken by the landlord prior to March 2024 with no updates given to the resident during this period. This was a clear failure in the landlord’s communication with the resident and handling of her reports. The landlord did not progress the actions it committed to in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s evidence does not provide an exact date the neighbours upstairs toilet was repaired however its internal communications suggests this was around March 2024.
  12. The landlord did however take steps to mitigate the damage the water ingress caused to the resident’s bathroom, including any build up of damp and mould. It completed works on 21 September 2023 to make good the bathroom ceiling and to re-paint the whole area. This was around 6 weeks after it discovered the cause of the ingress. As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord also committed to carrying out any further works needed to the bathroom due to the water ingress. It did a further damp and mould inspection and completed the necessary follow on works during various appointments in December 2023 and January 2024.
  13. The landlord also contacted the resident in May 2024 to arrange more follow-up works to her ceiling and bathroom although the evidence suggests the resident had completed this work by herself. The landlord’s actions in completing remedial repairs to the bathroom represented good practice from the landlord whilst the water ingress remained ongoing.
  14. The landlord did recognise that its handling of the water ingress fell short of its expected standards. It apologised for the delay in its complaint response. It offered the resident £10 compensation for the appointment that it re-arranged to the following day, and a goodwill gesture of £90 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repair.
  15. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord recognised the resident’s distress and inconvenience, the amount offered was insufficient.
  16. The landlord failed to properly follow up with the resident’s neighbour after discovering the cause of the leak. The resident experienced that ingress for an extended period and there was unnecessary delay over several months which affected the condition of her bathroom. The landlord also failed to evidence that it kept the resident informed of its actions following the stage 2 complaint response despite its commitment to do so. Both of these failures were especially distressing for the resident considering she suffered from chronic asthma, and there was a young child living at the property.
  17. The landlord should pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been a failing from the landlord that has caused distress for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in the handling of her reports of water ingress (inclusive of the £90 it awarded through the complaints process).
    2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.