London Borough of Enfield (202341697)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. She reported a water leak coming through the light on her bathroom ceiling, causing damage and affecting the electrics. The landlord found the leak was coming from the properties directly above on the first and second floor. It repaired the leak in February 2024. The resident remains unhappy about the landlord’s handling of the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak entering the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a leak entering the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a leak entering the resident’s bathroom ceiling

4. The landlord did not remedy the repairs in line with its policy timeframes. But it has acknowledged this failure, provided an appropriate remedy and completed the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

5. The landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses outside the timescales of its complaints policy. While it did notify the resident in advance about the delay, the reason for it was unclear and it caused the resident further distress.

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.

6. The resident told us that the leak had been ongoing since May 2023. While the resident’s comments are noted, we have not seen contemporaneous evidence that the matter was brought to the landlord’s attention prior to October 2023. We have therefore assessed the landlord’s response from this date until the end of the complaints procedure.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that there are 6 repair classifications:
   1. Critical repairs – completed within 4 hours of the request.
   2. Emergency repairs – completed within 24 hours of the request.
   3. Urgent repairs – completed within 5 days of the request.
   4. Routine repairs – completed within 30 days of the request.
   5. Out of hours (OOH) repairs – completed within 4 hours to try to rectify the issue or make safe.
   6. Planned works – completed within 90 days of the request.
8. On 6 October 2023 the resident reported that she returned home to a leak coming through the light fitting on the bathroom ceiling, the electrics had tripped and the paint work was damaged. The landlord did not attend to make safe and refit the light fitting until 7 days later, which exceeded the timeframe for emergency repairs, causing inconvenience and frustration for the resident.
9. The repair log shows that on 24 October 2023, the landlord believed that there had been leaks from the 2 flats above which needed tracing. The records following this are unclear, but suggest this did not happen until 21 December 2023, the reason for the delay is unclear (because the tracing itself would be an investigation and isn’t an action that would be covered by the repairs policy timescales). It is unclear what classification of repair the landlord gave this and, in the meantime, there were further leaks.
10. There were 3 more reports of the leak in December 2023 and the landlord carried out further inspections. On 27 December 2023, it found that the flat directly above needed another shower pump to stop the tray overflowing. It aimed to repair this by 2 January 2024, which it met as it replaced the pump that day.
11. However, it needed to further investigate if the leak was coming from a pipe under the shower tray. This caused further frustration for the resident that it had not considered this previously and there was a further leak on 3 January 2024, which led to the complaint. The landlord carried out further tests to both upper flats, repaired the pipework and reinstated the bathroom light on 8 January 2024, again, it is not clear what classification this was given.
12. The last reported leak during this time was on 5 February 2024. There was no electricity in the bathroom, the landlord did not attend as an urgent repair but visited on 13 February 2024. Its records are unclear on some of the work carried out on the two flats adjacent above, which shows poor record keeping.
13. The evidence shows that the landlord fixed the leak after 4 months following the first report. While it made some attempts to resolve the leak before the final repair, it was not clear in what repair timescales it was following, which wasn’t a fair approach to repairs as it wasn’t clear to the resident when work should have been carried out by.
14. When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it apologised for the delays in the repair, awarded £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. Our guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 where there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact. The landlord’s award is within this range; and it was sufficient for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay and the repairs are no longer outstanding.
15. The landlord also offered £50 towards redecoration costs to the bathroom. When we look at financial loss, it needs to be demonstrated. In the absence of evidence of further loss/loss incurred, we’re satisfied that this was a fair offer.
16. The resident has said she had to take time off work because of the repairs. We will not generally order a landlord to reimburse a resident for time off work, loss of wages, or loss of employment while repairs are carried out. Works will often cause some inconvenience to residents, but their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. It would not be fair or reasonable for us to order a landlord to reimburse a resident for routine appointments.

17. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handing Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation.
18. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 January 2024, 6 days late. On the 10-working day it should have provided a stage 1 response it advised the resident she would receive the response on the 19 January 2024. However, did not provide this until 26 January 2024, a further 7 days after the deadline.
19. Though the landlord did acknowledge the stage 2 escalation on the same day, it did not provide its final response until 34 working days later. This exceeded the expected 20 working days, and whilst the landlord did advise the resident on 13 March 2024 of the delay in its final response, this was still after the response deadline.
20. In addition, the landlord did not provide a good and clearly explained reason to the resident for the need of an extension. Therefore, it did not follow the Code and added to the frustration the resident was already experiencing from the delays in dealing with the leak.
21. Given the failings we have identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance (as referenced above) which suggests awards in this range where there were failings by the landlord which caused distress and/or inconvenience to the resident but the failings were minor and/or would not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. We have identified recurring failures in the landlord’s record-keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to consider reviewing its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report, if it has not already done so.

Communication

23. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when the landlord keeps residents informed of the status of their repair. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs and it may wish to consider taking steps to do this in the future.