London Borough of Brent (202441337)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2006. The property is a 1-bedroom first-floor flat in a 12-storey block. The landlord has designated the block for demolition and is removing occupants in phases. This has left a number of vacant properties within the block. The resident reports that he lives with dyslexia, which makes written communication difficult. He also reports that he lives with asthma.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Squatters in the block.
   2. A leak.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Squatters in the block.
   2. A leak.
5. We have also found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We have found that the landlord did not:
   1. Act swiftly to secure vacant properties in the block despite its awareness that criminal damage and theft were taking place. It also did not proactively communicate with the resident about the matter.
   2. Communicate appropriately with the resident or allocate the repair to the right contractor. It also failed to thoroughly investigate the source of the leak when it was reported.
   3. Fully investigate all aspects of the resident’s complaint. It also failed to raise a new complaint after he reported dissatisfaction with staff conduct in his escalation request.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

7. As previously stated, the resident’s block is due to be demolished. This is expected to happen in 2028. The evidence shows that squatters have been accessing the vacant properties and that the associated theft and vandalism were the cause of the leaks into the resident’s flat.
8. The landlord was aware on 14 October 2024 that the property above the resident’s had been accessed by squatters. At this point it would have been reasonable for it to have checked the block and urgently secured any other vacant properties. However, this did not happen until 5 November 2024, 3 weeks after the leak. Given the criminal activity taking place, this timescale was unreasonable.
9. The resident raised concerns about squatters and unsecured properties in his stage 2 escalation request. The landlord contacted him on 11 November 2024 to inform him that it had secured a number of properties on 5 November 2024. This communication was reactive and in response to the resident’s escalation request. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted him proactively to inform him of its actions. This would have given reassurance that it took his concerns seriously.
10. The landlord has confirmed that it has 2 security guards patrolling the block 24 hours a day. It is not clear when this arrangement was put in place. The landlord indicated March, but not which year. Nonetheless it is an appropriate step. Positively, it has also employed the services of property guardians to occupy vacant properties to prevent squatting.
11. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that the theft of the pipes was outside its control. We do not fully agree with this statement. It is understood that part-occupied dwelling blocks in London may attract squatters due to the shortage of properties in the capital. As such, the landlord is responsible for ensuring the tenants who remain are safe and secure. It therefore stands that it should have measures in place that reflect the likelihood of criminal behaviour. The delay in securing the properties, after the leak experienced by the resident, indicates this was not the case.
12. As mentioned above, the landlord did not feel it was at fault in relation to the squatters or damaged pipes. We have therefore assumed that the compensation it awarded in its stage 2 response was solely allocated to its handling of the leak. Our award of £150 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there has been a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.

What we did not look at

13. The resident has referred to issues that were raised after the original complaint, such as difficulties arranging works with the contractors, rats in the walls of his flat, and issues with his hot water boiler. These issues were not the subject of the complaint that the landlord responded to at stage 2 in December 2024, so we have not investigated these. The resident has the option to ask the landlord to raise a new complaint about any additional issues, and to refer it to us for a separate investigation if he is dissatisfied with the final response.
14. The resident told us and the landlord that the situation had a detrimental impact on his 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 any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this any further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did look at

15. The resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service on 13 February 2024 to report a severe leak coming into his property from the flat above. He was concerned there was a fire risk as the water was coming through the light fittings. The landlord’s out of hours service advised a plumber would attend within 4 hours. The resident thought this was too long so called the fire service, which attended but was unable to resolve the leak.
16. The landlord’s repairs policy provided to this investigation states that emergency repairs will be attended to within 2 hours to make safe and rectified within 24 hours. However, the information on its website indicates that emergency repair response times are 4 hours, which would align with the call handler’s advice on the night. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to align its repairs policy with its website (if it has not already done so) to prevent any future confusion on this matter.
17. When it was clear the fire service could not resolve the issue, the resident contacted the landlord again to report the ongoing leak. The landlord advised it would send a plumber within 4 hours. The resident states that this did not happen, and that it was many hours before the first plumber turned up. The landlord has provided minimal records of the plumber’s visit. We are therefore unable to determine how far outside the required 4 hours the visit took place.
18. In all, 4 plumbers visited the resident’s property throughout 14 October 2024. None were able to resolve the leak, with each one reporting that a heating engineer was required.
19. The first plumber to attend confirmed that they were unable to stop the leak and said that the landlord needed to send a heating engineer. However, an incorrect referral led to the attendance of 3 further plumbers, all stating that a heating engineer would be needed to resolve the issue. It was approximately 7pm on 14 October 2024 when a heating engineer arrived and isolated the water supply. The repeated attendance of incorrect operatives indicates a failure in communication, which allowed the leak to continue for an inappropriate amount of time. This led to avoidable damage and significant distress and inconvenience for the resident.
20. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord indicated that a contributing factor to the delay was that it could not access the resident’s flat or the flat above. The resident disputed this. He said that the fire service had waited for the first plumber and that a family member had waited for the second, who did not turn up in time. He further advised that he continually tried to call to ascertain what was happening but was unable to speak to anyone, which was unreasonable.
21. In its stage 1 response, the landlord also said the delays were due to the out of hours operatives not having keys for the void property that was the source of the leak. It acknowledged the error and advised that it had taken action to ensure keys would be available for future call outs. It was appropriate that the landlord identified the gap in its procedures and took steps to resolve it.
22. In one of the resident’s escalation requests on 18 November 2024, he informed the landlord that his flat was again affected by a leak, and that there were further unsecured properties above him. He also advised that one of the plumbers who had attended on 14 October 2024 had told him that there were 2 leaks affecting his property. Despite the plumber’s suspicion of a second leak, there is no indication that this was passed to the landlord or the plumber’s employer. This is a further indication of poor communication and an inadequate investigation.
23. The landlord visited the resident on 5 November 2024. We have not been provided with any inspection paperwork or notes from the visit. This is an indication of poor record keeping.
24. During the inspection the resident told the landlord that he suspected that there was a leak in one of the above properties that it had recently secured. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed it had inspected the flat on 28 November 2024 and found an additional leak. It acknowledged that the leak that had affected the resident’s property was likely from this property, not the property it originally inspected on 14 October 2024. The landlord’s acknowledgement indicates an inadequate investigation which allowed an uncontrolled leak to affect the resident’s property for a period of approximately 7 weeks. This period significantly exceeded the timescales listed in its repairs policy.
25. Further, in its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that it had secured the property causing the leak on 5 November 2024. This also demonstrates that it had failed to check the flat for any issues before boarding it up, which the landlord admitted was a further missed opportunity to identify and resolve the leak.
26. The resident complained to the landlord that the contractors had attended his flat several times without appointments and then left no access cards. He advised he found the contractors extremely frustrating to deal with. The landlord acknowledged his frustration and agreed the actions of the contractor were not what it expected.
27. Overall, the landlord did not comply with its responsibility to maintain and keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property as well as the fittings for the supply of water.
28. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it said it would contact the resident to discuss what remedial work was required. It advised it would then establish a realistic timescale to conduct the repairs. The resident informed us that the work to rectify the defects remains outstanding. He has also told us that conditions within the property have become worse. We have already notified the landlord of a “material change” under Awaab’s Law. In addition, we have made an order here for it to inspect the property to assess any outstanding remedial work.
29. The resident told the landlord that the issues had caused him significant distress, inconvenience and worry, and that he felt it did not care about him or the building because it was being demolished. In his conversation with us in January 2026 he confirmed his feelings remained the same.
30. Over both of its complaint responses, the landlord offered £575 compensation. Although we welcome its financial offer to resolve the dispute, which has prevented a more severe finding, we do not consider the offer to reflect the anxiety, distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay a total of £900 to him. This sum is comprised of £100 per week for loss of enjoyment during the 7 weeks the leak continued and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This award is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

31. 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, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
32. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued within 1 working day. We do not have a copy of its acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation request. However, it appears there was an acknowledgement, which would also indicate the stage 2 complaint response was issued in line with the landlord’s policy timescale.
33. In the resident’s complaint on 15 October 2024, he said that there was a smell affecting his flat that he described as “disgusting”. The landlord did not deal with this issue in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident raised the issue again in his complaint escalation requests on 7 and 18 November 2024. In those communications he said the smell was affecting the whole building and that he was concerned it was impacting his health. He also advised that he was having to sleep with a mask on because of the smell.
34. The landlord again did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the smell in its stage 2 response. This was a failure to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code, which requires landlords to address all complaint points raised by a resident. It also likely left the resident feeling unheard and reinforced his perception that the landlord did not care about him.
35. Further, in the resident’s escalation email on 18 November 2024 he told the landlord that he was upset with the behaviour of a staff member who had visited him on 5 November 2024. He said the staff member had “belittled him and spoken to him like a child”. He added that they entered his kitchen with a “disgusted” look on their face. This was a clear indication of dissatisfaction that aligned with the landlord’s definition of a complaint. However, there is no evidence that the landlord raised a new complaint as required by its policy, which was unreasonable.
36. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it apologised for not addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the squatters in its stage 1 response. While the apology was appropriate, the landlord’s decision to address the matter at stage 2 rather than opening a new complaint meant the resident was unable to request an internal review of its decision regarding the squatters. The approach was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code and was unfair on the resident.
37. Due to the failures identified, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have also made an award of £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.

Learning

38. But for the landlord’s recognition of its failures in its stage 2 response and the steps it said it was going to take to prevent recurrence, we would have found severe maladministration in its handling of the leak.
39. The landlord issued its complaint response within 1 working day. While we appreciate the swiftness of the response, it must ensure that sufficient time is taken to address all complaint points. Had this happened, it is possible that the complaint handler would have also addressed the resident’s concerns around the smell affecting his property.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord has provided minimal records to this investigation. We are aware there were 5 plumber visits as well as visits by electricians, yet we only have 1 inspection report that contains very little detail. It is vital that landlords keep robust records of all events during the complaints process so that they can demonstrate they have responded appropriately and answered the specific complaint points raised.

Communication

41. The landlord has not provided evidence that it communicated effectively with the resident. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord must consider how it can improve its communication with residents.