Leeds City Council (202407427)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407427

Leeds City Council

13 October 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from a neighbouring property.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 15th floor of a 17-storey block.
3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 6 February 2024. He said there had been a return of a leak from the flat above that had previously been dealt with by the landlord in 2022. He wanted the landlord to fix the leak fully as he felt the earlier repairs had not effectively resolved the issue.
4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 February 2024. It said that it upheld the complaint as it had failed to follow process and confirm the prior leak was repaired with no further action required. It awarded £150 in compensation for delays in resolving the leak and for the time and trouble taken to pursue the complaint.
5. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 11 March 2024. He disputed the source of the leak and asked for immediate decisive action to resolve the matter fully.
6. On 8 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said contractors had confirmed the source of the leak and had applied a temporary measure to resolve the issue. As the flat above was the property of a leaseholder, the leaseholder had responsibility for completing the repairs affecting the resident’s property. The landlord said that possible legal action could be taken and increased the compensation payment by a further £350 for the time and trouble for repairs to be completed by the leaseholder and in pursuing the complaint.
7. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained unhappy that the leak was ongoing. The resident wanted the leak to be fully resolved.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

8. The resident raised initial concerns about a leak in November 2021. The landlord resolved the issue and from August 2022 until February 2024, no further issues were recorded by the landlord. No formal complaint was raised until 6 February 2024.
9. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This is normally 12 months. The resident should have raised a complaint earlier if they were dissatisfied with how the leak was previously handled.
10. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that were raised as part of the formal complaint in February 2024. It would not be reasonable to investigate issues from 3 years before the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from a neighbouring property

11. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 February 2024. This was the first time that he had reported a leak since July 2022. The landlord sent an electrician to attend the property on 8 February 2024 to check electrics due to the leak from the flat above. The flat above was not owned by the landlord but was a leasehold property. The landlord said that the electrics were not affected by the leak. The response was within timescale for the landlord’s priority repairs policy.
12. On 19 February 2024, an emergency inspection order was raised. Although there were no details about what caused the emergency inspection to be raised, the evidence shows the property was attended on the same day by a plumber who found that the leak from the above flat was caused by water escaping from loose tiles and defective sealant around the bath. The response was in line with the emergency repairs policy of the landlord. The job was marked as complete on the landlord records, but it is unclear what action the landlord took at this time. It is important for landlords to hold records of works completed at appointments so it can satisfy for itself that it has taken sufficient action to resolve issues.
13. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 February 2024. It said it had identified the leak was from loose tiles and sealant around the bath of the above flat. However, the landlord also said it was told that the leaseholder’s plumber found that the leak was not from the above flat but from the main soil stack. This was contradictory and confusing. The landlord acknowledged failings, apologised and awarded redress, which was considered reasonable as no issues had been reported from July 2022 to February 2024. It is accepted that the leak was a complex issue due to the responsibility of the repair belonging to the leaseholder in the upstairs property. However, the response failed to explain what actions the landlord would take going forward to resolve the leak.
14. The resident raised his complaint to stage 2 on 11 March 2024. He said that the leak was not from the main soil stack, and the response had failed to address the root cause of the problem. The landlord’s technical officer (TO) inspected the soil stack on 15 March 2024 and found no leaks present. The TO found signs of leak from the bath of the above flat and applied temporary measures to repair the leaks. The TO confirmed to the landlord a list of findings and recommendations needed to resolve the repair. The landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns, identified the issues and applied temporary repairs appropriately as the responsibility of a leak within the above property lay with the leaseholder of the property.
15. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 8 April 2024. The response said the landlord had written to the leaseholder that they must carry out essential works to the bathroom as a matter of urgency. It is noted that no evidence has been provided that the landlord contacted the leasehold regarding the works required after the resident raised its formal complaint. The landlord also acknowledged its failings and provided updates to the resident including the source of the leak and next steps to refer the case to the leasehold team and for possible legal action. The response and redress offered was deemed reasonable, though no timescale was provided regarding the next steps, which was a missed opportunity by the landlord to help repair relations with the resident.
16. Following the stage 2 complaint response, a letter was posted to the leaseholder on 19 June 2024, giving 24 hours’ notice to enter the flat above the resident’s property. No response was provided by the leaseholder, and evidence shows that after sending the letter on 19 June 2024, the landlord’s legal team said it had to legally give 2-month notice for access, so no further action was taken. This was not correct and did not follow the landlord’s leaseholder’s dealing with leaks policy which said that as per the lease agreement, the leaseholder must “permit the Council and its agents or licensees upon reasonable notice (except in emergency) to enter the Flat for the purpose of examining any part of the building’. There have been no reasons provided why the landlord would be required to provide the leaseholder 2 months” notice for access. This is not deemed reasonable and added significant delay to progression of the repair.
17. The landlord sent a 2-month notice to complete repairs to the bathroom on 27 August 2024. This was the correct action to give as the lease agreement stated that the landlord must give the leaseholder 2 months to make good any defects or repairs identified. However, the landlord delayed sending the notice to complete repairs for 2 months. No explanation has been given and this was considered unreasonable, especially whilst issues were ongoing.
18. A disrepair claim was made on 18 October 2024 which detailed that the damage from the leak above had led to damp in multiple rooms in the property. After the 2-month notice expired an additional inspection was carried out on 23 October 2024. This was a reasonable response. No leak was found in the above property during the inspection, and the tenant of the leasehold property told the landlord that repairs had been completed, though it was not clear what the repairs related to, and it was not confirmed that the repairs had addressed the source of the leak. Internal emails show the landlord requested further investigations to locate the source of the leak on 11 November 2024. There was no evidence provided of any follow up investigation, and the landlord took no further action until June 2025. This was a failure and a missed opportunity by the landlord to progress the case as it took no action against the leaseholder for a further 6 months.
19. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 May 2025 and said that the leak remained unresolved. The landlord did not respond to the resident, but on 6 June 2025, the landlord served a formal notice to the leaseholder to rectify the leak within 48 hours. The letter said that if the leaseholder failed to remedy the cause of the leak, the landlord would take the action required to complete the work, which would involve seeking an injunction to gain access by force. There was no evidence that the leaseholder complied with the request and no evidence that the landlord followed this up. This was another failure as the landlord should have responded to the resident and taken further action after the 48-hour notice passed, but nothing progressed until 3 months later.
20. The landlord sent another 2-month notice letter to the leaseholder on 11 September 2025. This was almost a year after the previous 2-month notice expired. The landlord has confirmed to us it can gain entry to the leasehold property on 11 November 2025. The notice sent to the leaseholder says the landlord is to inspect the flat with a view to giving further notice for making good any defects or repairs that the leaseholder would be required to complete within 2 months.
21. As detailed in paragraph 15, the landlord did not need to provide the leaseholder with a 2 month notice to attend the property. The landlord made the leaseholder aware of the repair needs on multiple occasions for over a year. There are no reasons we have seen to explain why the landlord would need to give the leaseholder a further 2 months’ notice before attending the property.
22. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) concluded in April 2024, and the issues are ongoing to date. Clear failures to following processes and unnecessary delays have been evidenced in the fact the landlord has sent 3 separate legal notice letters to the leasehold to attend the property and the leak is ongoing. Though it is accepted that the landlord completed an inspection of the leasehold property following the first 2-month notice, no action was taken, and the issue remains unresolved, a year after the last inspection.
23. The landlord told us that it believes the leasehold property to be unoccupied and therefore there is no leak as of 29 September 2025. It told us that the housing officer regularly liaises with the resident and confirmed there is no leak in his property. The resident has disputed this and told us on 2 October 2025 that the leasehold property is currently occupied by multiple people, the leak is ongoing and that his health has suffered as a result. He told us that the previous tenant did move out but there are new tenants in the property now. The Ombudsman is unable to determine the status of either the leak or whether the property is indeed occupied, we do know that the underlying root cause has not been fixed and a notice for inspection has been provided to the leaseholder for the landlord to inspect the property on 11 November 2025.
24. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from a neighbouring property. This is because the resident made a formal complaint about the leak in February 2024, and despite efforts to resolve the issue, the issue remains. The landlord failed to follow correct actions and delayed repairs and failed to provide substantial updates to the resident about the leak for over a year. Multiple rooms have been affected by the leak and the resident told the Ombudsman his health has been impacted. He detailed how he had to attend hospital in June 2024 and receive treatments, due to waste entering his eye as a result of the ongoing leak.
25. In accordance with our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £500 for the handling of the resident’s concerns about the leak. Although the landlord acknowledged failings within the ICP, the issue remains.
26. The landlord has provided the leaseholder with 2-months’ notice before it returns to inspect the property on 11 November 2025. Within the notice, the leaseholder has been told he will be given a further 2-months to complete all repairs necessary. If this is not done, the landlord has said it will complete repairs and forward any charges to them.
27. In the Ombudsman’s view, it is unreasonable for the resident to have to wait 4 months before he can be sure that the work has been completed. This seems particularly unnecessary as this is not the first time that the landlord has issued notice for the works to be completed. The landlord should therefore contact the leaseholder to establish whether the inspection date can be brought forward and ensure works are completed within 2 months of the inspection taking place. At the very latest, the works must be completed by 18 January 2025.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from a neighbouring property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

29. The landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to the resident for the distress and inconvenience experienced, the time taken to resolve the issue and poor communication.
    2. In addition to the £500 that the landlord has already awarded, the landlord must pay an additional £500 in compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination directly to the resident for:
       1. Distress and inconvenience
       2. Failure to follow process
       3. Delays in implementing actions
       4. Poor communication
    3. Take all reasonable steps to contact the leaseholder and bring the inspection of the property forward from 11 November 2025.
    4. Provide the leaseholder with 2-months’ notice to complete the specific disrepair believed to be the cause of the leak. Notice should be given by Friday 14 November 2025 at the latest.
    5. Follow up with actions taken by the leaseholder by 14 January 2026 and if repairs are not completed by the leaseholder by this date, the outstanding repairs must be completed by the landlord by 18 January 2026.
    6. Complete any follow up internal repairs and redecoration required to the resident’s property by 25 January 2026.
    7. Complete a post-works inspection to identify and repair any outstanding issues by 31 January 2026.
30. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the dates provided of each of the orders above.