London Borough of Croydon (202402013)

Background

1. The resident is the leaseholder of a ground floor flat of which the landlord is the freeholder. The landlord owns and lets the upstairs flat to a tenant.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of leaks from the upstairs flat.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the upstairs flat.
   2. There was a reasonable offer of redress prior to our investigation for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of leaks

4. The landlord should have taken more robust action to gain access to the upstairs flat and complete repairs in line with its policy. It did not consistently communicate with the resident in a proactive manner and failed to maintain full and accurate records of its actions.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. It did however make a reasonable offer of redress as a remedy.

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.

What we have not considered

6. The resident said the leaks have been ongoing intermittently for approximately 4 years. However, in the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, this investigation has focused on the complaint raised by the resident in August 2023 and the 12 months prior to this.

What we have considered

7. The resident is a leaseholder and is responsible for repairs within the property. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for keeping the upstairs flat in good repair. This includes repairing installations such as water pipes, baths, basins, and sinks. It says it will:
   1. attend an emergency repair, such as an uncontainable leak, within 2 hours to make the property safe
   2. attend an urgent repair, such as a leak from a water pipe, within 24 hours to make the property safe
   3. complete non-urgent repairs within 15 working days.
8. The landlord’s records show that, for the relevant period, the earliest recorded repair was raised on 23 March 2023 to investigate a leak into the resident’s property. The records say the landlord completed the repair on 3 April 2023. However, the landlord told us it did not have access to further information because the work was carried out by its previous contractor. Despite its relationship with the contractor ending, the landlord should have access to repair records. This includes the report it received, what works were carried out, and whether it needed to complete any follow up action. Recording such information would ensure that the landlord had an accurate audit trail of the actions it had taken. That such it has not maintained such records is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping.
9. The next report of a leak was on 29 July 2023. The landlord’s out of hours team attended and checked both properties. Its notes say:
   1. the leak had stopped
   2. it had checked the bathroom and under the washing machine in the upstairs flat and could not identify the source of the leak
   3. a ‘slight repair’ was required to the resident’s ceiling
   4. the matter should be investigated during normal working hours.

The landlord responded appropriately to the emergency repair report and ensured the property was safe. 2 working days later, after the resident complained, the complaints team asked the repair team to attend as soon as possible to investigate and resolve the leak. We have not seen any evidence the repairs team responded to or actioned this request. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to proactively investigate the leak.

10. On 23 August 2023, the resident told the landlord that water was coming through her kitchen ceiling. The landlord appropriately raised an emergency repair and attended in line with the timescales set out in its policy. However, the contractor was unable to access the upstairs flat and closed the repair. The landlord’s conditions of tenancy (applicable to the tenant of the upstairs flat) say that in an emergency it has the right to enter its property without notice. We have not seen any evidence to explain why the landlord (or its contractor) did not exercise its right of entry on this occasion. This is a record keeping failure which has impacted our ability to fully assess its actions.
11. The records show that the landlord was initially unsure about whether it had completed any repairs on 23 August 2023. This indicates a further issue with record keeping and its ability to actively monitor repairs. On 7 September 2023, the contractor confirmed it had not gained access to the property. The contractor told the landlord that “with EME’s” (understood to mean emergency repairs), if it does not gain access, it closes the job and the tenant needs to report the repair again. This is not an effective way to manage repairs in circumstances such as these because the tenant may not be aware of the issue or its urgency. The landlord is responsible for the services provided on its behalf by its contractors. Therefore, we have recommended that the landlord reviews its policies and procedures in relation to access for emergency repairs.
12. The landlord subsequently contacted its tenant and arranged a repair appointment for 19 September 2023. However, the tenant failed to allow access on this date. It is positive that the landlord proactively updated the resident about what was happening during this time. However, aside from a calling card left on 19 September 2023, there is no evidence the landlord followed up with its tenant at this time. This was inappropriate and contributed to delays resolving the leak.
13. The landlord has not provided complete records of its actions. For example, it has provided repairs references without any further detail, and/or referenced in emails dates it booked appointments for which have no corresponding repair reference. This is a record keeping failure which has impacted our ability to accurately assess its actions. However, the available evidence shows that between 19 September 2023 and 12 March 2024 the landlord:
    1. may have attempted to gain access to the upstairs flat on further occasions in September and October 2023
    2. planned to force access to the property in relation to a separate matter but did not proceed due to poor communication between the landlord and its contractor
    3. was uncertain about whether the tenant was still occupying the property.
14. During this period, the resident contacted the landlord multiple times requesting an update. The landlord did not always respond to her. On 3 occasions when it did respond it said it would come back to her when a member of staff returned from leave, or when it had more information, but it did not do so. The landlord failed to keep the resident informed about progress or manage her expectations appropriately. Within her emails, the resident reported that further leaks had occurred on 16 January and 6 February 2024. We have not seen evidence that the landlord raised repairs following these reports which was inappropriate.
15. On 12 and 13 March 2024 the landlord took steps to establish if its tenant was occupying the property and asked them to make contact. Records of its internal communications show it considered arranging an out of hours appointment because it felt it was more likely that the tenant would be at home in the evening. This demonstrated that the landlord was now taking a more proactive approach to resolving the issue.
16. On 15 March 2024, following communication with its tenant, the landlord confirmed to the resident it had booked an appointment to carry out repairs to the upstairs flat on 21 March 2024. On 21 March 2024, the landlord repaired the bath. An inspector checked the repairs on the same day and found that the sink had not been sealed. He said this repair should be completed urgently to “resolve the escape of water from the kitchen the resident below is experiencing.” The landlord attended later the same day and completed a repair to reseal the kitchen sink. However, the repair record says, “follow on required.” We have not seen any evidence to explain what follow on action was required, or that the landlord completed this. This is a record keeping failure and has affected our ability to confirm if the landlord completed the repair satisfactorily.
17. On 22 March 2024, the resident asked the landlord what repairs it had completed in the upstairs flat. She also asked whether it would replace the flooring underneath her upstairs neighbour’s bath and if it would repair the damage to her ceiling. The landlord responded the same day and said it had repaired the bath waste pipe and would confirm once it had completed the repair to seal the kitchen sink. On 28 March 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had inspected the repairs on 21 March 2024, and it did not need to carry out any further works in relation to the leak from the upstairs flat. It is not clear if the landlord had considered the note on the repair record which said that the repair needed follow on works. It appropriately provided links to information about making a claim on its insurance policy and recommended the resident begin the process of submitting a claim for damage to the kitchen ceiling.
18. On or around 12 April 2024 the resident reported a further leak coming through the kitchen ceiling. She expressed concerns that the ceiling may collapse. The repair records show that the landlord raised an emergency repair. However, the order was closed with a note saying that “the tenant (of the upstairs flat) said there is no active leak at the moment.” Bearing in mind that the tenant of the upstairs flat may not be aware of a leak from their property into their neighbour’s, the landlord should have checked with the resident whether the leak had stopped. It is unreasonable that there is no evidence it did so.
19. When she complained, the resident told the landlord there were cracks in her ceiling and mushrooms growing. On several occasions during the complaint process she expressed frustration that she could not progress repairs to the ceiling until the leak was resolved. The landlord took approximately 8 months from its attendance at the property on 29 July 2023 to gain access to the upstairs flat. It could have acted more quickly and robustly to address this. The landlord should have updated the resident more consistently about what it was doing to progress the repair. This would have provided her reassurance and its failure to do so contributed to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
20. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for the distress caused by its repeated failure over a lengthy period to resolve the problem. This is not proportionate to the findings of our investigation. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 compensation to reflect the impact on her.
21. In May 2026, the resident told us that the landlord had resolved the leak. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord has not repaired the damage to the kitchen ceiling. As a leaseholder, the resident is responsible for repairs within the property such as plastering and decoration. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident towards making an insurance claim.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint said:
    1. it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days
    2. it would provide its responses within 20 working days at both stages
    3. if it needed longer than 20 working days to respond at stage 1 it would notify the resident, and provide a revised timescale and regular updates
    4. if it needed longer than 20 working days to respond at stage 2 it would keep the resident updated.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint 10 working days after receipt and provided its response 29 working days after that. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint 7 working days after the resident asked to escalate and provided its response 56 working days later.
24. The landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s complaint in line with the timescales set out in its policy at both stages. We have not seen any evidence it told the resident it needed longer to provide its responses, or that it kept her appropriately updated about the progress of the complaint.
25. In its complaint responses the landlord apologised for the delays and offered the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble she experienced pursuing the complaint. This is reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures which have adversely impacted the resident. We have recommended that the landlord pays this amount to the resident if it has not already done so.

Learning

26. There is learning for the landlord to take from this case around how it pursues access to properties for repairs in similar circumstances. It should review and strengthen its policies and procedures for gaining access for emergency repairs, ensuring clear escalation steps where it does not obtain access. This includes proactive follow‑up, accurate record‑keeping, and timely use of appropriate access powers to prevent prolonged risk to residents or properties.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s failure to maintain adequate records impacted its handling of the matter and our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. Effective knowledge and information management prevents confusion and ensures that the landlord has a good understanding of the situation, the actions agreed and/or taken and any outstanding issues. Maintaining accurate records will also provide it with an accurate audit trail of the actions it has taken and its decision making.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication with the resident at stage 1 was timely and proactive. If it had maintained this quality of communication with the resident it could have reduced her frustration, and her time and effort chasing the landlord about the progress of the repairs.