London Borough of Enfield (202404351)

Background

1. The resident lives in a one‑bedroom flat in a block. He lives with physical health conditions, which the landlord is aware of. The resident reported a leak from the flat above that caused significant bathroom damage.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The leak.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The leaks and associated damage

4. The landlord did not respond to the leak on time in line with its repairs policy, causing significant delays in completing the repairs and addressing the damage caused.

Complaint handling

5. There was a delay in responding at stage 2, and the landlord also failed to acknowledge the complaint.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident said that he had been reporting leaks for over 10 years. While we do not dispute this, we encourage residents to raise unresolved complaints to us promptly so that any service failures by the landlord can be addressed in a timely manner. As issues become historical, evidence becomes difficult to obtain and verify. Therefore, this investigation focuses on the events leading up to the resident’s formal complaint about the leak and the damage caused.
7. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on his health. Where we identify failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

What we did investigate

8. The resident reported the leak from the above flat on 27 October 2023 and said water was leaking through the extractor fan and the light fitting had exploded.
9. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, a leak is classed as an emergency, and the landlord should attend within 4 hours to contain it and make the property safe. The policy also states that a loss of electricity, including unsafe lighting, should be repaired or made safe within one day.
10. The landlord’s repair logs do not show what action it took, which is a record keeping failure. Good records are important because they show what steps were taken and when. Without this information, it is not possible to check if the landlord acted appropriately or within required timescales.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said a contractor attended the property the same day but could not fix the leak. However, there is no record of this visit in its repair logs.
12. The landlord sent contractors to the property on 6 occasions between 30 October and 8 December 2023 to stop the leak and ‘make safe’ the electrical items in the bathroom. The records, and the landlord’s stage 2 response, do not make it clear whether the leak was finally repaired on 30 November or 8 December 2023. Either way, the landlord did not repair the leak within the timescales set out in its repair policy. This meant the resident faced repeated visits, an ongoing leak, and uncertainty about when the issue would be resolved.
13. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it repaired the light fitting on 8 December 2023. This was outside the timeframe set out in its repair policy. As a result, the resident was left without a safe and working light in the bathroom for longer than was reasonable.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had difficulty gaining access to the flat above to trace the source of the leak, which contributed to the delay in stopping it.
15. Although the landlord responded to the reports of the leak and attempted to trace its source, the delay in stopping it and in repairing the light fitting was not reasonable. During this period, the landlord did not keep the resident informed about what action it was taking. This left the resident unable to make full use of the bathroom and meant the room remained in a hazardous condition. The landlord appropriately acknowledged these failures in its stage 2 response and apologised.
16. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for completing plastering, floorboards, and skirting‑board repairs. It will do so within 90 days. However, internal decorating and flooring repairs are the resident’s responsibility.
17. The landlord correctly advised the resident to make an insurance claim through either his own home insurer or the landlord’s insurance. This was appropriate because items such as the flooring were not covered by the landlord’s repair policy.
18. The landlord did not deal with the resident’s report that the ceiling, walls, plastering and skirting boards were damaged. These repairs are the landlord’s responsibility, so it should have acted. Because it didn’t, the resident had to live with damage that made his home less safe and comfortable. This likely caused avoidable stress and may have allowed the problems to get worse.
19. We have also investigated and made findings in another case from the resident (reference 202529422), which involved similar issues. It is unclear whether the damage relating specifically to this case is still outstanding, as there was little contact between the resident and the landlord until further problems arose in 2025. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether any repair work it is responsible for remains outstanding from this incident.
20. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings within its complaint responses and offered £100 compensation. Although its offer went some way towards putting things right, it did not reflect the full extent of the distress and convenience caused to the resident. It did not reflect that:
    1. It took the landlord 42 days to stop the leak and make right the light fitting.
    2. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities and how the lack of bathroom facilities in those 42 days would have impacted him.
21. The failures in this case amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the effect on the resident, we have ordered additional compensation of £200. This brings the total compensation for the repair issues to £300. This is in line with the range recommended in our remedies guidance where there were failures and the landlord’s offer of redress was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 30 working days. The landlord has since updated its policy to mirror our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 2 November 2023 and issued its response on 16 November 2023 on time, in line with its complaints policy.
24. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 February 2024, but the landlord failed to acknowledge it.
25. The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided on 27 March 2024, 6 working days beyond its 20-working-day timescale. The landlord failed to ask for an extension, as it could have under its policy. It did apologise for the delay in its response, but offered no redress for the complaint handling failures, which we consider inappropriate given the multiple failings at stage 2.
26. While not acknowledging the stage 2 complaint was a relatively minor error, the delay in issuing its stage 2 response had an impact. It left the resident without timely updates, created avoidable frustration, and prolonged a situation that should have been resolved much sooner.
27. This leads us to a determination that there was service failure, and we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation for its complaint handing failures to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly regarding monitoring outstanding repairs and clearly confirming their completion. It is reminded of the need to keep full, accurate, detailed, and accessible records.

Communication

29. The delays in complaint handling show that the landlord did not fully follow its own policy, and so improvements are needed to ensure timely communication and deadlines. The Code will help the landlord to improve the quality of its complaint communications.