North Northamptonshire Council (202418127)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with her 4 children. She had repeatedly reported a leak coming from the bathroom into the hallway below. Two of the resident’s children have disabilities. At the time of her complaint the resident was pregnant with her youngest child.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. A leak from the bathroom.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak from the bathroom.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Leak from the bathroom

4. The landlord unreasonably apportioned blame on the household for the leak. The leak has not been resolved and continues to affect the property over 4 years after the resident initially reported it.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response in line with the timeframe in its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It did not acknowledge its delay in issuing this response. The landlord did not answer all the points the resident raised in her complaint as required to by the Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. On 8 January 2024 the resident reported a leak coming from the bathroom down into the hallway through a smoke detector and light. This had been an ongoing problem since it was first reported by the resident in March 2021.
7. The repair request logged by the landlord on 8 January 2024 stated the leak was from the bathroom going through the ceiling. However, the landlord logged this job as a leak from the roof, and a roofer attended the property. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction about this during her escalation request, but the landlord did not respond to this or offer an apology.
8. On 9 January 2024 a work order was raised for an inspection. The landlord said in its stage 1 response dated 31 May 2024 that this inspection took place on 11 January 2024. We have not seen a copy of this inspection report.
9. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that at this inspection a thermal imaging survey was carried out along with moisture readings. It said no leaks or high moisture levels were found. The landlord said it concluded that the leak was caused by water spraying out of the shower when it was being used.
10. Another 2 work orders were raised on 28 May 2024 and 16 July 2024 for further inspections of the leak. These inspections took place on 29 May 2024 and 23 July 2024. We have not seen copies of these inspection reports.
11. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the inspection on 29 May 2024 had found there was no leak and that it thought that having replaced the bath seal on 23 May 2024 had resolved the matter. However, it did not, and the resident reported further leaks.
12. The landlord said in its stage 2 response dated 26 July 2024 that the inspection on 23 July 2024 had found no leak present. It said at the inspection a new cover strip had been installed underneath the bath to re-direct any surface water if it sprayed out of the bath.
13. This work did not resolve the matter as the resident reported the leak again on 16 August 2024. She requested that the landlord look at the full repairs’ history for the issue. The resident said she had video evidence that the leak was not caused by water escaping when the shower was in use.
14. The resident referenced this because the landlord had repeatedly stated it thought that her children were causing the leak by allowing water to fall outside the bath. This was referenced in the stage 1 response and implied in the stage 2 response as it gave advice on a shower curtain to prevent water spilling onto the floor. There were also landlord internal communications that stated this was the reason it thought the leaks were occurring.
15. The resident repeatedly told the landlord that there was no water on the floor on the occasions when the leak happened. She also told the landlord that after dealing with the leak for years, the household had adapted its bathing behaviours to ensure no water went on the floor. The resident explained how her shower curtain was held in place. She said when the leak occurred that the side of the bath, wall and floor were completely dry. The resident told the landlord she felt her children were being unfairly blamed.
16. There was another instance that apportioned blame to the resident rather than the landlord being resolution focused. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it had not installed the mixer-tap shower at the resident’s property. The resident disputed this in her escalation request. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised that there had been a “miscommunication”. It acknowledged that it had installed the mixer-tap shower. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise.
17. It was not unreasonable or a failing that multiple visits were needed to try to identify the cause of the leak. We appreciate that causes of leaks can be difficult to identify and can require multiple investigations to resolve.
18. However, the landlord concluded its stage 2 response stating the resident’s shower curtain was not sufficient. It did not offer any further resolution or monitoring to ensure the leak was fixed. This was not appropriate.
19. The resident repeatedly advised the landlord of injuries that had happened as a result of the leak. She said she had been electrocuted while pregnant when she had tried to disconnect the smoke detector. She had done this as the leak was coming through the smoke detector and light on the hallway ceiling. The resident said her son who has learning disabilities and coordination issues had slipped and fallen on the water when the leak had happened before anyone had noticed. She also stated that jackets and shoes had been ruined by the leak.
20. The reoccurring leak, reported damage to the resident’s belongings, repeated appointments and not feeling believed or listened to is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
21. On 11 December 2025 the resident told us that further leaks have occurred since the stage 2 response. She said after reporting further leaks the landlord identified there was a large hole under the bath. The resident said the landlord had filled the hole, replastered the hallway and put in a new light and smoke alarm.
22. The resident told us that this repair lasted for a few months but now water marks have started to appear again in the same place indicating a further leak. The resident has contacted the landlord about this. The landlord has not provided us with records of recent events despite our request for these on 9 December 2025.
23. By predominantly focusing on lifestyle during the complaints process, repairs and advice was on preventing the impact of any splashing from the bath. Due to this focus, the landlord may have missed opportunities to identify the root cause of the leak.
24. The landlord did not award the resident any compensation during its complaints process. This was unreasonable due to the length of time the leak had been reoccurring and the distress and inconvenience caused.
25. We have ordered the landlord to award the resident £400 in compensation. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the length of time the leak has been reoccurring and the unreasonable focus on lifestyle. We have also made an order for the landlord to identify the cause of the leak and put this right.

26. The resident made her complaint on 28 May 2024. The landlord’s internal communication stated the resident’s complaint had been acknowledged but we have not seen this, despite requesting a copy.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 response and acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation request in line with the timeframes in its policy and the Code.
28. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all the points the resident raised in her complaint. This was not in line with the Code which states that the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The resident raised that the landlord had not addressed all the points of her complaint in her escalation request, but the landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 response.
29. The resident’s escalation request was acknowledged on 14 June 2024, but the stage 2 response was not issued until 26 July 2024 which was 30 working days later. This exceeded the 20 working days timeframe stated in its policy and the Code.
30. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in issuing its stage 2 response. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have addressed its complaint handling failure.
31. We have ordered the landlord to award the resident £100 compensation. This is because the landlord did not answer all the points the resident raised in her complaint, and it did not acknowledge its delay in issuing its stage 2 response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord should ensure it keeps thorough records of the outcomes of inspections. We would encourage the landlord to review the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management and the key learnings in our Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its record keeping.
33. The landlord should also ensure that all correspondence relating to complaints is appropriately logged so evidence to show if it has complied with the timescales in the Code is kept and provided for our investigations.

Communication

34. The landlord should ensure its communication is accurate and that complaint responses contain correct information.
35. We would encourage the landlord to review our Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals, and our Spotlight Report on damp and mould – it’s not lifestyle, to ensure it is responding to resident’s concerns fairly and appropriately without apportioning blame.