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.

Penge Churches Housing Association Limited (202323909)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323909

Penge Churches Housing Association Limited

16 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 reports of water ingress.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy.
  2. The property was a 2-bedroom flat on the 1st floor. The resident lived with her daughter. The resident moved to a different property in November 2024.
  3. The landlord became aware of a leak in a neighbouring flat on 19 June 2023. The resident called the landlord on 3 July 2023 to report water ingress into her bathroom and daughter’s bedroom. After not receiving any response, she called the landlord on 5 July 2023 to raise a formal complaint about its delay in handling the water ingress.
  4. The landlord attended on 6 July 2023 and determined the cause of the leak was a leaking overflow pipe from the upstairs neighbour’s boiler. The landlord attended again the following day and determined that a boiler replacement was needed. The landlord erected scaffolding at the property on 4 August 2023 and performed a temporary repair. This was to re–direct the leak away from the external wall to prevent further damage to the resident’s property.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2023. It said that, despite its attempt to repair the neighbour’s boiler, the leak remained ongoing. It said that it was in the process of replacing the boiler which would stop the water ingress. The landlord said that once it had done so, it would fully redecorate any areas in the resident’s property affected by the water ingress.
  6. The resident responded to the landlord on 12 August 2023 and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 15 August 2023. She felt the landlord’s response included factual inaccuracies such as the date she first reported the water ingress and whether the landlord told her the cause of the ingress at its first inspection. She said she wanted compensation for the time taken to resolve the water ingress and for the landlord to move her.
  7. The landlord completed the installation of the upstairs boiler on 15 August 2023.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 September 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint providing £250 compensation for the time taken to stop the water ingress. The landlord reiterated that it would redecorate all affected areas once these had dried. It confirmed that the resident first reported the ingress on 3 July 2023 and that it had provided her with the correct information about the cause of the ingress following its initial inspection. It also offered information on how the resident could pursue a move and the steps it could take to help her with this.
  9. The resident wrote to us on 12 December 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the water ingress and felt it was slow to resolve this, causing additional damage to her property. To resolve her complaint, she has said she would like the landlord to pay her additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to ‘keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including… exterior walls’.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy has 3 timescales for completing repairs. For Priority A (emergency) repairs, the landlord aims to respond within 24 hours, although if needed to make safe it says it will do so in 4 hours. At Priority B (urgent), the landlord says it will aim to respond within 3 working days. It describes urgent repairs as ‘those that may cause damage to the property if left too long’. At Priority C (next appointment), it says it will make an appointment within 2 working days and complete works within the following 30 working days.
  3. The resident first reported the water ingress on 3 July 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint initially said it believed this was on 6 July 2023 but it later agreed with the resident. The landlord attended to inspect the water ingress on 6 July 2023. This was within the 3 working day timescale specified for urgent repairs outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. Given the nature of the water ingress meant it was not an emergency, this was a reasonable timeframe.
  4. However, as part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord admitted that it should have recognised water ingress to the resident’s property at an earlier stage. The landlord became aware of a problem with the upstairs boiler on 19 June 2023. Its inspection notes from 21 June 2023 state that this was causing water ingress to the flat below. The landlord failed to follow up on this report with the resident; nor did it perform any inspections to check the damage this could cause to the resident’s property. This likely meant that the damage to the resident’s property went on for longer than it should have, causing distress and inconvenience.
  5. After the landlord’s inspection on 6 July 2023, it confirmed that the cause of the water ingress was an external overflow pipe from the upstairs boiler. The landlord’s records are not clear on what, if any, repair it undertook on this date. Nevertheless, it attended again the following day and noted that it needed to replace the upstairs boiler. It then began arrangements to do so – these actions were reasonable.
  6. The landlord e-mailed the resident on 12 July 2023 to state that it had completed repairs and there were no outstanding orders. The landlord’s records are unclear on whether it attempted temporary repairs between 6 July and 12 July 2023. There was a further inspection on 13 July 2023 but again it is unclear exactly what, if any, actions the landlord undertook to mitigate the water ingress during this visit. If it did attempt any mitigating actions, these were unsuccessful, and the resident continued to experience water ingress.
  7. The landlord eventually undertook a temporary repair on 4 August 2023. It erected scaffolding and re–directed the leak so it no longer dripped onto the resident’s external wall. Whilst it was good practice for the landlord to perform a temporary repair whilst waiting to install the new boiler upstairs, it should have performed this sooner. It should have considered its temporary repair options when it recognised that it would not be able to install the neighbour’s new boiler within a matter of days. The delay in considering this course of action represented service failure from the landlord.
  8. The landlord consistently told the resident that it would repair any damage and perform redecorations following the water ingress. The landlord first outlined this to the resident on 6 July 2023. The landlord maintained this position throughout the complaints process, offering the resident dehumidifiers to dry the property out on multiple occasions. It has also provided evidence to the Ombudsman that it fulfilled this commitment and completed redecorations to make good the effects of the water ingress. The landlord’s offers of dehumidifiers and to make good on any damage represented good practice from the landlord.
  9. Overall, it took the landlord around 8 weeks from the time it was first aware of potential water ingress into the resident’s property to complete the necessary repairs. This fell outside of the timescales specified by the landlord in its repairs policy. The time it took for the landlord to rectify the water ingress undoubtedly caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident and represented service failure. In mitigation, some of this delay was caused by a requirement in late July 2023 to perform a health and safety assessment in the upstairs flat to check for the presence of any asbestos and scaffolding was required to complete the repair.
  10. The resident told the landlord on 6 July 2023 that the water ingress meant her young daughter was unable to use her bedroom. Given that the landlord took a further 6 weeks to repair the upstairs boiler, it should have considered sooner what actions it could take to mitigate the effects on the resident’s living conditions.
  11. The landlord could have undertaken an assessment to check whether there was a risk of harm or considered potential actions such as moving the resident into temporary accommodation whilst they were unable to use a bedroom. The landlord’s evidence does not demonstrate that it properly considered potential household vulnerabilities.
  12. Nevertheless, the resident stated as part of her escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process that she wanted the landlord to re–house her. The landlord’s evidence demonstrates that it provided the resident with information on her available re–housing options and attempted to contact her directly to discuss this. This represented good practice from the landlord and was an appropriate response to her request.
  13. The landlord recognised that its service had fallen short of its expected standards. It offered the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings, acknowledging that it took too long to complete the repair. However, some delays were inevitable given the need to source and fit a new boiler, erect scaffolding and check for asbestos. It also acted appropriately in offering the resident dehumidifiers and information about re–housing.
  14. The £250 compensation falls within a range recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been ‘a failure which adversely affected a resident’. Given the delay period was around 2 months and the mitigating factors outlined above, we are of the view that this compensation was sufficient alongside the landlord’s apology and decoration offer.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £250 compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based upon this amount being paid to the resident.