London Borough of Enfield (202339314)

Decision
Case ID	202339314
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Enfield
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	23 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette, located in a low-rise residential building. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. In February 2023, the resident reported several repair issues to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the soil stack pipe.
2. Reports of defective guttering and related damp at the property.
3. Formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the soil stack pipe.
2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective guttering and related damp at the property.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

We found that the landlord:
1. Unreasonably delayed in resolving both repairs, communicated poorly with the resident, and failed to take appropriate steps to put things right for her.
2. Failed to escalate the resident’s initial request to make a complaint and went on to issue confusing and inaccurate responses at both stages of the complaints process, without demonstrating any learning or improvement as a result.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a staff member of director level or above. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic, and has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,450 made up as follows: £250 for its handling of her reports of repairs to the soil stack pipe. This includes the £125 offered at stage 2, plus an additional £125 for the failures identified in this report. £1,000 for its handling of her reports of defective guttering and related damp. £200 for its handling of her complaint. This includes the £75 offered at stage 2, plus an additional £125 for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 February 2026
3	Completing the works The landlord must take all necessary measures to ensure the defective guttering and associated damp repairs are completed promptly, and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or The steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 09 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 March to 2 June 2023	The resident informed the landlord on 3 occasions that she wanted to make a complaint regarding its handling of outstanding repair issues. These included: A faulty soil stack pipe which was causing foul-water damage. Defective guttering which was causing internal damage and dampness. A “large” block of concrete that had fallen from the building onto the walkway.
16 June 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. It said: It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the incomplete repairs. It had arranged 2 repair appointments for 22 June 2023 to inspect the soil stack and replace the damaged access panel. It had scheduled an appointment for 1 July 2023 to seal the walkway, which it suspected to be the cause of the internal dampness.
23 January 2024 to 1 March 2024	The resident informed us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling as the issues regarding the defective guttering and associated dampness had not been resolved. As such, we asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint to investigate the matters further.
2 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It had completed the soil stack pipe repair on 22 June 2023. It apologised to the resident for its delays in completing the works. In July 2023, it had failed to escalate the resident’s concerns about the guttering and associated dampness. To put things right, it had scheduled an appointment for 8 April 2024 to assess the guttering and associated internal damage. It offered the resident £200 compensation. Of this, £125 was in recognition of the soil stack pipe delays between April 2023 and June 2023, and £75 for its complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the soil stack repair and the defective guttering and associated damp repair. The evidence shows that the landlord made several attempts to address the guttering and related damp issues, with works completed in September 2024 and again in March 2025. However, in January 2026 the resident informed us that the same problems had returned in late 2025. As an outcome, she wants the landlord to identify the underlying cause of the leak and provide a lasting resolution. The resident did not escalate her concerns about the fallen concrete on the walkway to us. Therefore, we have not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to that specific issue.

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.

Complaint	Reports of repairs to the soil stack pipe
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had negatively impacted on her physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
On 23 February 2023, the resident reported having “recurring drainage issues and smells for 5 years”. While we do not dispute this, we are unable to assess the landlord’s actions before February 2023. This is because we have not seen any evidence that shows the landlord was informed of the issues prior to that date.

What we did investigate

The landlord provided a copy of the lease agreement. This does not set out repair responsibilities for the building. However, as the freeholder, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord is responsible for structural elements and drainage systems. This is supported by the fact it carried out the soil stack repairs without dispute.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will deal with emergency repairs within 1 working day. This includes attending to repairs relating to a leaking foul drains, soil stack, or toilet.
The resident informed the landlord on 3 occasions between 23 February 2023 and 30 March 2023 that she had a “foul” and “hazardous” leak coming through the kitchen ceiling. The landlord did not raise an emergency appointment until 30 March 2023. This interval of 25 working days meant the landlord failed to adhere to the timescales outlined in its repairs and maintenance policy and allowed a potentially dangerous situation to continue without prompt intervention.
The landlord’s repair records do not show what, if any, work was carried out during the emergency appointment on 30 March 2023, which indicates poor record keeping. However, within the resident’s request to make a complaint—likely sent between 31 May 2023 and 2 June 2023—she explained that the landlord “initially could not do the work and that [it] scheduled to reattend the following week”.
Emails between the resident and landlord in April 2023 suggest that the landlord attended the property again on 13 April 2023. However, the repair records provided by the landlord do not show this. This is further evidence of poor record keeping. Nevertheless, the resident confirmed that the leak had been resolved during this appointment. From the date the resident first reported the issue, this was a response time of 49 calendar days, which excessively exceeded the landlord’s target timescale.
On 27 April 2023 and 5 May 2023, the resident reported that she was awaiting a follow‑up repair to fix the access panel damaged during the appointment to the soil stack on 13 April 2023. Based on landlord’s repair and maintenance policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise this as a “routine repair” (with a completion timescale of 30 calendar days). This is because it was a defect that “was not likely to cause any serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance if not given an urgent response”. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident or raised a repair. The resident’s feelings of being ignored are highlighted.
The resident raised the issue again within her stage 1 complaint (made between 31 May 2023 and 2 June 2023). Within the landlord’s stage 1 response on 16 June 2023, it stated that it had raised 2 repairs for 22 June 2023—one to address the damage and another to inspect the soil stack. It is unclear why the landlord scheduled 2 separate repairs, as the resident had already informed it that the leak had been resolved. In an email dated 1 July 2023, the resident noted that the second operative who attended on 22 June 2023 “was not very happy that the work had already been done”. This indicates that the landlord’s poor coordination led to an unnecessary visit, resulting in wasted time and resources.
The access panel repair was completed on 22 June 2023, meaning it took 70 calendar days to resolve the issue—significantly exceeding the landlord’s repair target timescale of 30 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer between £100 and £600 where an issue “adversely affected the resident, but with no permanent impact or where a significant failure occurred”. At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident £125 compensation for the “3-and-a-half-month delay in completing the soil stack repairs from April to June 2023”. However, as the resident first reported the issue in February 2023—and we identified failings from that point—the compensation offered did not reflect the full extent of the landlord’s shortcomings.
For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Defective guttering and related damp
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we did not investigate

On 23 February 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had previously told its contractors about the guttering issue when it was undertaking major works to the building. We do not dispute the resident’s comments. However, we are unable to make an assessment on this due to the lack of available documentary evidence.

What we did investigate

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will attend to a repair to a roof, gutter, or rainwater goods within 30 calendar days (routine repair) or 90 calendar days (planned repair). However, the evidence provided does not show which category the landlord applied to the repairs in this case.
Within the resident’s email to the landlord on 23 February 2023, she reported water damage, cracked plaster, and peeling paint on her living room wall. She said she believed the issues were being caused by poorly sealed external guttering and asked the landlord to confirm how it intended to resolve them.
The landlord’s communication with the resident between February 2023 and May 2023 about the repair was inadequate. This is because:
1. The landlord replied to the resident approximately 3 weeks later, on 16 March 2023. It did not address her concerns about the guttering and leak, prompting her to repeat them on 19 March 2023 and 30 March 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her or raised the necessary repairs.
2. On 27 April 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the contractor from 13 April 2023 (who attended for an unrelated repair) had said it would arrange a repair for the guttering. However, the landlord did not respond or confirm this.
3. The resident informed the landlord again on 5 May 2023 and 25 May 2023 that the repair was outstanding. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 16 June 2023, it suggested the leak “may be” linked to an outstanding issue to the walkway and that it had raised a repair for 1 July 2023. However, because no documentary evidence has been provided, it is unclear what work—if any—was carried out or what the outcome of this repair was.
On 1 July 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the contractor (who had attended on 22 June 2023) had told her that it had raised a repair for the rear guttering because the rainwater was “not draining and stagnating, which was causing the internal leak”. The landlord appropriately responded on 5 July 2023, advising that the matter had been escalated to a supervisor who was working with contractors to obtain a repair quote.
From the evidence provided, it is not clear if and/or when the landlord received a quote from its contractor. However, within an email on 29 August 2024, the landlord told the resident that “a leak was reported on 21 August 2023, but the contractor advised access was not given” and “further works were raised and completed on 22 September 2023”. However, the landlord has not provided any documentary evidence to support its claims. This is again evidence of poor record keeping.
On 16 January 2024, the resident informed the landlord that the guttering issue remained unresolved as the plasterwork in the living room was damp and was “pulling away from the ceiling which was causing a noticeable draught”. She requested confirmation of the previous works undertaken and asked the landlord to urgently undertake a repair. The landlord did not respond. The importance of effective communication is again highlighted.
The resident informed the landlord on 17 February 2024 that the leak had worsened. Although the landlord discussed the issue internally, there is no evidence it raised a repair or replied to the resident. This demonstrates a clear lack of action and poor communication.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response on 2 April 2024, it confirmed an appointment for 8 April 2024 to assess the external and internal damage.
At stage 2, the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation for its handling of the guttering repairs. Given that the repairs remained unresolved approximately 14 months after the resident had first raised them, this was inappropriate. It was also at odds with the landlord’s compensation policy, which states that “if a resident has suffered distress, frustration or anxiety regarding a service failure over a considerable period, it is appropriate to pay compensation in recognition of this”.
Between April 2024 and September 2024, the landlord inspected the leak, raised and completed external works, and later carried out internal repairs. However, its communication with the resident throughout was inconsistent and often absent. She repeatedly chased for updates and confirmation that the leak had been resolved and escalated the issue to local councillors and our Service, due to the lack of progress. This was an expenditure of her time that should not have been necessary.
The works were completed on 23 September 2024, 19 months after the resident first raised the issue. This prolonged delay was unreasonable and demonstrates poor management and oversight of the repair.
The resident informed the landlord she was happy to close the complaint, providing the issues did not reoccur. However, on 14 January 2025, she informed the landlord that she was concerned the guttering repair had not been resolved, as the leak in her living room had returned and mushrooms were growing in the wall.
The evidence shows that the repairs were completed on 3 March 2025. During this period, the landlord responded promptly at first but failed to sequence the repairs appropriately, beginning internal works before completing the required external repairs. The records also show inconsistent follow‑through on the supervisor’s recommendations, contributing to further delay and uncertainty for the resident.
In January 2026, the resident told us that the leak had returned in late 2025. She provided date‑stamped photos showing damage in the same areas as previously reported. As the resident confirmed that she had not reported this to the landlord, we cannot find fault in the landlord’s actions since 3 March 2025. However, the recurrence of the leak indicates that the original issue was not fully resolved.
For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account the significant impact on the resident, we have made a finding of severe maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her an appropriate amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and send its final response within 30 working days. This is not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which says landlord should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The Code became statutory in April 2024.
The resident provided evidence that she initially raised a complaint with the landlord on 30 March 2023 through its website, and at the same time sent an email to confirm the submission. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident. This was at odds with its complaints policy, which states if it “decides not to deal with a complaint, [it] will provide an explanation of that decision in writing”.
The Code at the time of the complaint said landlords must make it easy for residents to complain by providing different channels through which residents can make a complaint such as in person, over the telephone, in writing, by email and digitally. On 25 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord via email again that she wished to complain about its handling of the repair issues. Given this clear expression of dissatisfaction, and her earlier attempt to complain, it is unclear why on 30 May 2023 the landlord directed her to submit a complaint via its website. This was an unreasonable response and showed a lack of proactivity.
The landlord provided us with a copy of the resident’s complaint that she made via its website. Although the evidence indicates that she submitted it between 30 May 2023 and 2 June 2023, the exact date of submission is not clear. This lack of clarity is indicative of poor record keeping.
The evidence suggests that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 June 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its target timescales. However, the landlord was unable to provide us with a copy of its stage 1 acknowledgement email. This is further evidence of poor record keeping and is at odds with the Code, which states that a full record of the complaint must be kept, including all correspondence with the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 June 2023. This was appropriate, as it met the required timeframe of 10 working days.
However, the landlord’s stage 1 response was poor. While it was positive that it apologised to the resident for the “inconvenience caused by the incomplete repairs” and provided an update on what it was going to do to resolve some of the issues, it did not appropriately review its handling of each of the resident’s concerns. Also, despite acknowledging some service failures, the landlord failed to consider the guidance outlined in its compensation policy and offer the resident an appropriate amount of compensation. Its failure to do so was not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
After the stage 1 response, the resident asked the landlord on 1 July 2023 when the guttering and internal damage would be repaired. The landlord’s reply on 5 July 2023 was confusing, as it stated that the complaint was “closed” and that the guttering was a “new repair”, despite the resident raising the issue repeatedly since February 2023 and as part of her complaint. This demonstrates poor understanding of the case and inadequate complaint handling.
Following notification from us on 1 March 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 5 March 2024. This was within 2 working days (against a target of 5).
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 April 2024. This was within 19 working days (against a target of 20), and therefore appropriate. However, we found the landlord’s stage 2 response lacking. This is because:
1. It contained several factual inaccuracies and contradictions, including:
  1. Claiming the resident first reported the guttering issue on 1 July 2023, despite her raising it multiple times since 23 February 2023.
  2. Suggesting the walkway repair was connected to the leak, even though the evidence shows the 2 issues were unrelated.
  3. Referring only to delays in the soil stack repair between April 2023 and June 2023, while overlooking earlier failings in its handling of the matter.
2. Although the landlord acknowledged some failings, it did not explain what it had learned from the resident’s complaint or what steps it would take to prevent similar issues from recurring.
3. It did not offer any compensation for the handling of the guttering and damp repairs.
4. While it was positive that the landlord offered some compensation for its complaint handling (£75), it did not account for all the failures identified in this report.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that payments “will be made and credited no later than 30 working days from the date of the compensation acceptance form being received”. The resident informed the landlord that she accepted its offer of £200 compensation on 8 April 2024. However, despite chasing the landlord about the payment, she did not receive it until late September 2024. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident and offered her an additional £50 for this delay. However, as it was made over 5 months after it issued its stage 2 response, it cannot be fairly considered part of the landlord’s ICP. This means we cannot use its offer to reach a reasonable redress finding.
The landlord’s complaints process failed to effectively monitor and ensure the timely completion of the actions it had committed to. The interval of 24 weeks (from issuing the stage 2 response in April 2024, to undertaking the repairs in September 2024) was unreasonable and evidence of poor complaint handling.
Taking into account the observations above, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping, particularly regarding repairs, was notably poor and made it difficult for us to assess several aspects of the case. Also, several pieces of key information were provided to us by the resident, rather than the landlord. It should ensure it maintains accurate, contemporaneous records of all repairs and correspondence with residents.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the repair journey was consistently poor. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.