Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202450346)

Background

1. The leaseholder rented the property to a subtenant at the time of the complaint. She complained about the landlord’s handling of a severe leak that caused the property to be uninhabitable. After the complaints process there were further leaks. The property has since been repaired.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
   2. Severe maladministration in its complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. There were avoidable delays in the landlord resolving the leak into the leaseholder’s property. Its communication with the leaseholder was poor, and its record keeping was inadequate.
5. The landlord sent an incomplete complaint response to the leaseholder. As a result, there was a one-stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaint response contained errors and did not sufficiently put things right for the leaseholder.

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. The leaseholder told us there were 2 more leaks after the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the leaseholder’s concerns about its handling of these leaks, they have been considered for context only. The leaseholder can raise a new complaint to the landlord about its handling of these leaks if she wants to. She may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to this matter.
7. The leak into the leaseholder’s property was severe, causing ceilings in the property to collapse, and the property to become uninhabitable. As a result, the leaseholder’s subtenant needed to leave the property. The leaseholder told us that the experience caused her significant worry.
8. The landlord was responsible for fixing the leak under the terms of the property lease, as it came from a communal stack (shared pipe system). The landlord’s repairs and maintenance guide says that the landlord considers an uncontainable leak to be an emergency repair. It aims to ‘make safe’ emergency repairs within 24 hours.  It appropriately logged the repair as an emergency when the leaseholder reported it on 15 September 2024.
9. The repair was unusually complex, as the landlord had to trace the source of the leak, which was coming from a communal stack. It also needed to access other residents’ properties, and to carry out asbestos testing before doing the repairs. Due to the complexity of the repair, it necessarily exceeded the landlord’s guideline timescale for emergency repairs.
10. It took the landlord around 7 weeks to resolve the leak. The landlord accepted that this was too long, and there were avoidable delays in the repair. It agreed that it should have escalated the concern to a surveyor more quickly. It also acknowledged that it took too long for it to get the results for an asbestos survey. These delays in resolving the leak will have caused the leaseholder avoidable distress and inconvenience. As the leak continued throughout this period, they will also have resulted in additional property damage and may have led to more extensive repairs being needed.
11. Good record-keeping is essential for transparency, accountability, and assessing whether actions were reasonable. Overall, the landlord provided few records showing its actions and decision making around the leak. This indicates a shortcoming in its record-keeping. For example:
    1. When the property became uninhabitable, the landlord decanted (moved temporarily) the leaseholder’s tenant until January 2025. Its records do not show the decision-making process around this.
    2. We would expect the landlord to have records of communication to and from the leaseholder, and comprehensive records of each time it attended the property, for example when its surveyor attended the property on 8 November 2024 with the leaseholder. It did not provide these.
    3. We saw evidence that the landlord discussed the leak in internal meetings, but no meeting minutes were provided.
12. The leaseholder went to significant efforts to get information about the leak, including calling and emailing the landlord and its contractors. She said the landlord frequently failed to call or email her back. The landlord accepted that there were failures in its communication. These shortcomings in the landlord’s communication reduced the leaseholder’s confidence in the landlord’s repairs service. They also caused her time and trouble following up the repairs.
13. The landlord appropriately advised the leaseholder on how to make an insurance claim so she could claim rent loss for the time her tenant could not live in the property. However, the landlord accepted that it did not provide her with information she needed about the habitability of the property for the claim in a timely manner. This failing caused the resident further time and trouble pursuing the matter.
14. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on insurance matters; therefore, we have not assessed the resident’s loss of rent payment as part of our investigation. We have also not awarded compensation for the distress and inconvenience the leaseholder’s tenant experienced as a result of the leak. This is because the tenant does not have a landlord-tenant relationship with the landlord.
15. To put things right, the landlord said it would provide relevant staff with training on its procedures for uninhabitable properties, including their crossover with leaseholders’ insurance claims. This was an appropriate step to improve its service going forward. The landlord has been ordered to provide evidence that it provided this training to staff.
16. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair. While the landlord recognised some of its failings, it did not sufficiently put them right for the leaseholder. The landlord is ordered to pay the leaseholder £350 in compensation, in recognition of the impact its failings had on her. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where a landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the leaseholder.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
18. The landlord initially said it would respond to the leaseholder’s stage 1 complaint on 24 November 2024. On the 28 November 2024, the landlord extended its response deadline by 10 working days. While it is positive that the landlord told the leaseholder there would be a delay, it should have done so sooner. Its failure to do so will have caused her uncertainty.
19. Due to an error, the landlord sent the leaseholder an incomplete complaint response. The document the leaseholder received did not set out the landlord’s position on the issues she had raised. This was a significant error by the landlord. As such, when it became aware of the issue it should have sent a full stage 1 response and given the leaseholder an opportunity to respond and request escalation to the second stage of its complaints process if she wanted to.
20. It did not do this, instead sending its final response at the same time as its complete stage 1 complaint response. This will have been frustrating and inconvenient for the leaseholder. A 2-stage complaints process gives landlords opportunity to resolve any issues that are raised after an initial complaint response is sent. In this case, the leaseholder had to approach the Ombudsman for support, which may have lengthened the complaints process overall, as the landlord had fewer opportunities to put things right.
21. After acknowledging that it had sent the leaseholder an incomplete complaints response the landlord said it would ensure stricter quality control in its complaints process. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, it made a further error. It gave the leaseholder an incorrect complaint reference, and referred to her by both her own name, and by another name. This did not demonstrate that it had implemented the learning it had identified and further undermined the leaseholder’s trust in the landlord.
22. We have also seen evidence that the landlord has sent information about another resident to the leaseholder in error after the complaints process. The landlord should consider its information management practices to ensure they are robust.
23. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were unclear. For example:
    1. It used initials to refer to one of its contractors. It should have given the contractor’s company name and explained that it was referring to its contractor, to avoid confusion.
    2. The landlord did not fully address the issues raised by the leaseholder. For example, it did not say if it accepted there was a service failure in its response to the leaseholder’s request for information for an insurance claim. It did not say if or when it would provide the information requested, which will have been frustrating for the leaseholder. It also failed to give the leaseholder information about her tenant’s temporary accommodation, which it was paying for at the time.
    3. It told the leaseholder it would pay the electricity costs for the dehumidifiers installed in the property. It later told us this was incorrect and it will not cover these costs. This error will have further undermined the landlord-leaseholder relationship.
24. Landlords’ complaints teams should make sure they give residents up to date information, including recent updates, and clear ‘next steps’ with specific times and dates. This shows that they are taking ownership of complaints, putting things right and preventing future issues. This did not happen in this case.  For example:
    1. The leak was unresolved when the landlord drafted its stage 1 response. As such the letter should have included a clear plan of action going forward. The landlord gave a summary of the repairs required but did not give the leaseholder any appointment dates or times or tell her when she would next be updated on the repairs.
    2. It accepted there were delays in providing the outcome of an asbestos survey but did not tell the leaseholder when she could expect to receive the outcome.
    3. The landlord acknowledged failures in its communication, complaint handling and handling of the repair.  While it appropriately identified general areas of learning, the landlord should have given clear steps about how it would put things right for the leaseholder. As it acknowledged inadequate communication, it could have put a communication plan in place or told her how it would change its processes. Its failure to do this may have led the leaseholder to feel her complaint was not being taken seriously.
25. Cumulatively, the errors in the landlord’s complaints handling will have significantly undermined the leaseholder’s trust in its complaints process. They amount to severe maladministration.
26. To put things right for the leaseholder, the landlord has been ordered to pay £350 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (discussed above).

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should consider its information management practices to ensure they are robust.
28. The landlord should ensure it has full, accessible records of actions taken around repairs, including minutes of meetings.

Communication

29. Landlords should ensure that residents and leaseholders are kept updated throughout the repairs process. With particularly complex repairs, it is good practice to assign a single point of contact and agree update intervals. This manages resident expectations and can strengthen relationships.