London Borough of Islington (202435443)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak into his property on 12 September 2024 from the flat above, which is owned and managed by another housing provider. The leak damaged the resident’s ceiling, plasterwork, and several of his personal items.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damage caused by a leak.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damage caused by a leak.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

4. The resident first reported the leak on 12 September 2024. The landlord offered an appointment for 16 September 2024 to trace and remedy the leak. As this was not suitable, the resident chose an appointment for 30 September 2024. He later contacted the landlord to bring the appointment forward to 18 September 2024. He then contacted the landlord again and rearranged the appointment to 17 September 2024. This was when the landlord first attended the property.
5. The landlord categorised the resident’s report of the leak as an urgent repair. Under its repairs policy, urgent repairs are attended within three to seven working days. Both the appointment initially offered by the landlord and its eventual attendance fell within this timeframe. In his complaint the resident said the leak ‘appeared to be containable’ and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord not to treat it as an emergency.
6. At the first visit on 17 September 2024, the contractor attended the resident’s property and identified the flat above as the likely source of the leak. The landlord does not own or manage the flat above the resident’s home, which is owned by another housing provider. Due to this, the landlord was not obliged to inspect the flat above or trace the source of the leak, but its contractor reasonably decided to do so. Upon gaining access, the contractor found blockages in every outlet within the upstairs flat. This had caused water to back up and leak into the resident’s property.
7. The evidence shows that the landlord referred the matter to its home ownership team. On 19 September 2024, it contacted the landlord of the upstairs flat to ask what action was being taken to repair the leak. The upstairs landlord later confirmed that the repair had been completed on 19 September 2024.
8. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 7 October 2024. He said that there had been several leaks since his initial report on 12 September 2024. He stated that the leaks caused significant damage to his bathroom and bedroom. He explained that his bed and mattress became soaked, required replacement, and asked the landlord to compensate him for the damage. He also said there had been ongoing issues with the upstairs tenant over the past two years, which he believed his landlord was aware of. He considered that the landlord of the upstairs property was not liable for the damage, as he was not their tenant.
9. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2024. It confirmed that it had identified the source of the leak and received confirmation from the upstairs landlord that the issue had been fixed. The landlord also explained that a supervisor assessed the damage to the resident’s property on 4 October 2024 and arranged remedial works. It advised that it does not insure residents’ personal belongings and is only responsible for repairing property damage under the tenancy agreement. The landlord advised the resident to rely on his own contents insurance and signposted him to low‑cost insurance schemes. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, as it found no service failure.
10. Remedial works included making good the cracks to the ceiling, redecorating, scraping back loose plaster and skimming. These works were completed on 21 October 2024.
11. The resident escalated his complaint on 12 November 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 January 2025. It stated that the upstairs tenant was housed by a different housing provider and was not a tenant of the landlord or its managing partner. The landlord explained that any compensation claims or allegations of negligence were the responsibility of the other housing provider. It advised the resident to contact that housing provider directly if he wished to pursue a compensation or public liability claim. The landlord also advised him to contact his own contents insurer, if he had one, for further advice. While the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience and damage reported, it maintained that responsibility lay with the other housing provider and did not uphold the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
12. The landlord did not dispute that the leak damaged the resident’s belongings. The repairs log from the first visit records water droplets on the ceiling and notes that a bucket collected water dripping onto the bed. This indicates that water entered the resident’s property and fell onto items below. The leak also likely continued, from the report on 12 September 2024 until the source of the leak was repaired on 19 September 2024. This increased the likelihood of damage during that period.
13. The landlord’s Housing Policy on Refunds, Compensation and Remedies requires residents to submit a claim to the landlord’s Public Liability insurer where they believe damage to personal belongings resulted from landlord negligence. The resident has not accused his landlord of any negligence; therefore, it would not have been appropriate for it to direct him to its own liability insurer.
14. The policy states that the landlord will not pay compensation where it does not hold responsibility for the damage. In such cases, residents should claim through their own contents insurance or, if necessary, pursue recovery through the small claims court. As the leak originated from a property the landlord does not own or manage, it does not bear responsibility and cannot be held liable for the damage to the resident’s belongings.
15. Additionally, the landlord’s housing repairs and maintenance policy sets out tenants’ responsibilities for minimising loss. The policy states that where tenants experience water penetration, they are expected to move items of furniture and/or possessions away from affected areas to reduce the risk of damage. This policy clarifies that damage to personal belongings does not automatically place liability on the landlord, even where such damage has occurred.
16. The landlord’s responsibilities come from the tenancy agreement and apply only to properties it owns or manages and controls. Its duty is therefore limited to its own tenants and housing stock. These responsibilities cannot extend to properties owned or managed by other landlords. Extending liability in this way would place responsibility on the landlord for matters outside its control, which would not be fair, proportionate, or supported by its policies or the tenancy agreement.
17. The records show that issues relating to the upstairs tenant were ongoing prior to the leak on 12 September 2024 and were already being actively managed by that tenant’s landlord. At the time of this leak in the resident’s flat, a court date had been set to progress legal action against the upstairs tenant. Evidence provided by the resident’s landlord demonstrates that it was engaged in this process and supported the action being taken by supplying witness statements and detailed accounts of the impact of the anti-social behaviour on its own tenants. The coordinated efforts of both landlords, together with the support and cooperation of the affected residents, ultimately resulted in the eviction of the tenant above the resident’s flat. This sequence of events demonstrates that the landlord took appropriate and proportionate action in response to the matter.
18. Overall, the landlord responded to the report of the leak within its policy timescales, identified the source, and took reasonable and appropriate steps to address the issue. The leak originated from the flat above, which the landlord did not own or manage and which lay outside its control. Despite this, the landlord contacted the relevant housing provider regarding the leak. It also arranged remedial works to the resident’s property. While the leak likely damaged the resident’s belongings, the evidence does not show a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter or demonstrate that the landlord caused or held responsibility for the leak. The landlord therefore does not bear liability for the damage. For these reasons, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.