Basildon Borough Council (202515324)

Background

1. The leaseholder does not live in the property. Following reports from her tenant of damp and mould, she reported this to the landlord. She is unhappy it has not provided confirmation that all problems with the roof and guttering have been repaired. She is also unhappy it has not compensated her for the inconvenience caused by delayed repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress into the property and the related repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress into the property and the related repairs
   2. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Water ingress

5. The landlord did not carry out repairs in line with a reasonable timeframe and did not communicate reasonably with the leaseholder while the issue remained outstanding. It left works outstanding after its stage 2 response and has not demonstrated that it has completed this.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy at both stages.

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.

What we have not considered

7. The leaseholder has told us the issues with water ingress have been ongoing since 2021. The landlord responded to a formal complaint in 2021. She did initially approach us about this complaint but did not ask us to complete an investigation. We have therefore not considered the landlord’s actions at that time. Our investigation has focused on the events from November 2022 when new issues with the roof were raised.

Water ingress

8. The leaseholder told the landlord there was a problem with guttering on 24 November 2022, which was allowing water into the property. On 23 January 2023, she emailed the landlord to say that a contractor had visited on 5 December 2022 but it since had taken no further action. It responded on 30 January 2023 to say that its contractor had attended on 16 January 2025 but could not get access to the property. It said it had booked a new appointment for 24 February 2023.
9. The landlord’s leaseholders’ handbook sets out that it is responsible for repairs to the roof and guttering. This handbook does not provide any timescales for its response to repairs. We have therefore considered the timescales set out in its tenants’ handbook as we think are reasonable timescales for it to carry out repairs.
10. While the landlord carried out its initial visit was in line with the timescale set out in its tenants’ handbook of 28 days, its attempted visit on 16 January 2023 was not in line with this timescale. It’s not clear from the landlord’s records whether it had prearranged this visit, or why it could not gain access. However, the rearranged date of 24 February 2023 represented a further unreasonable delay.
11. During the visit on 24 February 2023, contractors found that they needed scaffolding. An engineer then attended on 10 May 2023, after scaffolding had been put up, to inspect the roof but found they needed access to a neighbour’s garden, which they could not gain at that time. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not arrange for the scaffolding to be put in the appropriate place to allow access for its contractors. This led to another unreasonable delay.
12. Contractors subsequently completed repairs on 2 June 2023, more than 6 months after the leaseholder reported the leak. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy and was therefore not appropriate.
13. The leaseholder reported a further leak on 10 November 2023. We have seen no correspondence from her between June and November 2023. We appreciate her frustration at there being repeated issues with water ingress. However, there is no evidence to suggest the previous repair was incomplete or poorly done.
14. The landlord’s records show that it raised a job on 15 February 2024 which said that it needed scaffolding. However, the records do not show it arranged this at the time. It raised a further job to erect scaffolding on 14 June 2024. Following a visit where contractors could not gain access on 9 July 2024, they attended again on 23 July 2024 and completed repairs. This was more than 8 months after the leaseholder reported the leak. This was again not in line with the landlord’s policy and was an unreasonable delay.
15. Following this repair, the leaseholder did not report any further issues with water ingress until 30 December 2024, when she asked the landlord to fix a communal drain as she said it was leaking into the property. She chased this email up on 4 February 2025 as she had not received a response.
16. The leaseholder raised her complaint on 1 March 2025, as she said that had not received a response to either of her previous emails. In its stage 1 response of 12 March 2025, the landlord acknowledged it had not picked up this email and apologised for this. It said that it had made an appointment for a contractor to attend on 19 March 2025. While it set out a clear timeline of the resident’s reports of leaks and its repairs, it failed to acknowledge that its responses had not been in line with its policy.
17. On 28 March 2025, the leaseholder responded as she was unhappy that the landlord had not updated her following the inspection on 19 March 2025. We have seen no evidence it responded, which was not appropriate. On 4 April 2025, the landlord’s contractor told it that scaffolding was needed, but this was subsequently overlooked due to staff sickness. This was rescheduled for 21 May 2025.
18. On 25 May 2025, the leaseholder asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as she was unhappy that work was still outstanding and it had not given her a date for completion. In its stage 2 response of 5 June 2025, the landlord acknowledged there had been delays and that its communication had been poor. However, it did not offer any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder, which was not in line with its compensation policy. It said that due to issues with the scaffolding, a contractor would attend on 10 June 2025 and conduct repairs using a tower instead.
19. The landlord’s repairs records show it was unable to conduct work on 10 June 2025. It shows scaffolding was erected on 12 August 2025, but it has provided no evidence it completed the repairs. The leaseholder has told us she has received no confirmation the repairs are complete. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it followed through with its stage 2 commitment.
20. The landlord has had to carry out repairs to the roof and guttering on multiple occasions between 2022 and 2025. We have seen no evidence that the repairs themselves were completed poorly. However, on each occasion the leaseholder has had to chase up repairs and there have been significant delays in the landlord completing the works. The landlord has failed to appropriately acknowledge these delays during its complaints process or show that it has completed the most recently raised repair.
21. The landlord recently told us that it has been unable to carry out repairs to guttering on the other side of the property. It says its contractors could not access this with a tower due to a lean-to attached to the leaseholder’s property. She has confirmed her flat is on the top floor and the only external structure attached is a balcony that was installed when the block was built. She said this lean-to must belong to the ground floor flat. It is not appropriate that the landlord has not demonstrated it has attempted to take further steps to progress this repair.
22. Our compensation order has been made in line with our remedies guidance for where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings, but there has been no permanent impact.

23. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord sent its stage 1 response 7 working days after the leaseholder raised the complaint (1 March to 12 March 2025) – in line with its complaint policy timescale of 10 working days
    2. it sent its stage 2 response 6 working days after she requested escalation (28 May to 5 June 2025) – in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days.
24. The landlord should have acknowledged the complaint at both stages, and we have seen no evidence that it did this. However, it responded promptly at both stages, so overall its handling of the complaint was reasonable.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s repairs records are not clear – it did not set out what date it completed work or clarify what work it completed on each visit. It is likely that the landlord’s lack of clarity in its records contributed to its failure to carry out repairs promptly or follow up on its stage 2 commitment. The landlord should consider whether its processes are sufficient to have a robust oversight of outstanding issues.

Communication

26. The landlord’s records for this case do not demonstrate effective communication. It has not evidenced that it kept the leaseholder updated when repairs were delayed and on several occasions, it failed to respond to her emails. There is no evidence it kept the resident updated when it was unable to meet its stage 2 commitment within the timescale it gave. The landlord should ensure that if it is unable to do something it has committed to, it updates the leaseholder and provides an explanation.