London Borough of Brent (202410185)

Decision
Case ID	202410185
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Brent
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	27 May 2026

Background

The resident lives in a ground floor flat in a block owned by the landlord. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord was carrying out major works to the block.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of drainage issues.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration the landlord’s response to reports of drainage issues.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Drainage

The landlord attended to clear recurring blocked drains and appropriately followed recommendations for further investigation and actions. However, it did not maintain full and accurate records or monitor the works sufficiently. This resulted in delays progressing the CCTV survey of the drains and the recommended follow on works. It also did not keep the resident reasonably informed about the situation.

Complaint handling

The landlord issued its complaint responses within its policy timescales at both stages. However, it did not clearly explain its decisions and reasoning or fully address the resident’s concerns.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 June 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by delays addressing reports of problems with drainage. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date	No later than 24 June 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

24 June 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by delays addressing reports of problems with drainage.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date

No later than

24 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reviews its record keeping procedures and practices and considers how it could improve the way it monitors and progresses repairs to completion.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 February 2024	The resident complained that the bin store and entrance to the block had been flooded with rainwater and sewage for several weeks. He said: the smell was disgusting and the extent of the flooding meant he could not avoid stepping in it when leaving the block it was difficult to report repairs on the landlord’s telephone system he had reported the issue multiple times to the on-site contractor carrying out the major works there had been recurring issues with a flooding pipe in the bin store for years and this caused damp inside his property.
22 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for any inconvenience. It said: there were times when the volume of calls it received resulted in delays raising repairs it had pumped the drains it was waiting for the results of a CCTV survey of the drains it would repair a leaking downpipe inside the bin store on 22 February 2024.
11 March 2024	The resident escalated the complaint. He was unhappy the landlord had only considered events since January 2023 when the problems had been ongoing for longer. He also said: the landlord had not repaired the downpipe it had taken 2 weeks to remove sewage waste, and he was concerned about the health and safety of all residents the landlord had not provided updates and each time he called he had to wait approximately 20 minutes to speak to someone.
5 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It: acknowledged that blocked drains were a persistent problem apologised for not repairing the downpipe said it had requested approval for work recommended following the CCTV survey would update the resident in 3 weeks about the progress of the downpipe repair and the works to the drains.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. He said: the bin store and pathway to his property remained flooded approximately 9 months since the issue was reported in January 2024 he was unhappy the landlord did not include resolving the blocked drains within the recent major works programme for the block the landlord had repaired the downpipe, but the leak had caused damp in his property he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication the landlord had not done enough to address problems with vehicles blocking access which prevented it from completing repairs to resolve the complaint, he would like the landlord to permanently resolve the issue as a priority.

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.

Complaint	Response to reports of drainage issues
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not consider

The resident said problems with the leaking downpipe and blocked drains have been ongoing for several years. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will not normally accept a complaint where the resident has delayed raising the complaint by more than 12 months. In the interests of fairness, our investigation is focused on the same period the landlord has addressed within its complaint responses. This includes events from January 2023 up to its stage 2 response and the follow up actions it committed to.
The resident told us that, as a leaseholder, the landlord charged him a proportion of the costs of major works to the block. He is unhappy that the landlord did not include drainage works within the programme and feels that it did not spend the money appropriately. The resident referred to the major works in his initial complaint. However, this matter was not addressed by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response. Nor was it included within the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. Therefore, this issue has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and does not fall within the scope of our investigation. We understand the resident attended a tribunal hearing concerning the cost and quality of the major works. The resident may wish to seek legal advice should he wish to discuss his concerns further.

What we did consider

The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure, outside and shared parts of the block. Its repairs policy says it will attend and make safe an emergency, such as a severe communal hazard, or exposed raw sewage, within 2 hours, and complete repairs within 24 hours. It aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days.

Blocked drains

In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged there were persistent problems with blocked drains which required frequent attendance. It provided a timeline of events since January 2023. However, there were some discrepancies between its timeline and its records. For example:
1. the landlord said it raised a work order on 13 February 2023 and attended to jet the drains on the same day; however, its records show that it raised the order on 9 February 2023
2. the landlord said it raised a work order on 20 July 2023 and attended to jet the drains and carry out an environmental clean on 31 July 2023, however its records show that it raised the order on 28 July 2023
3. the landlord referred to work orders raised and responded to on 12 February 2023 which are not reflected in its records.
The landlord’s repair records do not clearly or consistently confirm the priority it assigned repair orders, what works were carried out or when it completed work which is a record keeping failure. The discrepancies in its timeline of events and lack of detail in its records has impacted our ability to thoroughly assess its actions.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended to clear blocked drains 3 times in January, February and July 2023. There were no further reports of blocked drains until 27 October 2023. The landlord raised an emergency work order and noted reports that the drain was overflowing. The landlord said its contractor cleared the drains the same day. Its records do not provide confirmation of the date it attended or what action it took. The landlord raised further work orders for blocked drains on 28 and 29 October 2023. The records do not confirm when it attended but note that its contractor was unable to fully clear the drains. The landlord marked the work orders raised in January, February, July and October 2023, as ‘completed on the system’ on 14 April 2024.
On or around 28 October 2023, the contractor recommended the landlord should pump out the drains with a tanker, clean the lines and carry out a CCTV survey of the drains. In its stage 1 response the landlord said an administrative error delayed the progress of the work. The records do not explain what the error was. However, the evidence shows that the landlord:
1. raised a work order for the actions recommended by its contractor on 30 October 2023
2. received the quote for the follow on works from its contractor on 14 December 2023
3. approved the work on 5 January 2024
4. completed the CCTV survey on 12 February 2024.
We have not seen any evidence the landlord chased the quote between 30 October and 14 December 2023. It is unreasonable that it did not effectively monitor and progress the work, resulting in it exceeding its policy timescale for routine repairs by approximately 2 and a half months.
The landlord raised a work order on 31 January 2024in which it described a blocked drain overflowing with excrement. Its records show it made an appointment for 31 January 2024, jetted the drains and carried out an environmental clean. These were appropriate actions to take. However, its records do not confirm what date it completed the work.
On 14 March 2024, the landlord raised a work order which said that the drains were overflowing and there was excrement by the main entrance to the block. The landlord booked an appointment for 18 March 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response it says it attended and found a small spillage but could not confirm that it was excrement. It thought the spillage could have been related to the ongoing building work. In line with its policy, the landlord should have attended to make the area safe within 2 hours and complete a repair within 24 hours. It was inappropriate that it did not attend for 4 days.
Furthermore, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires the landlord to make sure that properties are safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm. This can include shared external areas of a dwelling if:
1. the landlord is in control of the area
2. a hazard impacts the resident’s ability to safely occupy their property
We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered the potential health risk posed to the residents of the block by sewage leaks. Despite 3 reports of overflowing sewage, the only evidence it carried out an environmental clean of the area is in its repair records relating to the order raised on 31 January 2024. The landlord should always respond to such reports urgently and keep records of its actions and decision making. For example, its assessment of the potential risk, whether it needs to restrict access to the affected areas, provide specialist cleaning and any information and support it provides to residents.
The landlord’s records lack detail and include undated notes and emails. However, it is clear that the resident contacted the landlord multiple times throughout the complaint process to request updates. We have not seen evidence that the landlord always responded to the resident’s requests. This was unreasonable and would have increased the resident’s frustration.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 April 2024. This was in line with its commitment to provide an update about the high-pressure jetting of the drain system within 3 weeks of issuing its stage 2 response. It again confirmed that it had carried out a CCTV survey and said, “it was reported that some pipe work would need to be replaced”. This was a vague statement that did not provide the resident with any meaningful update about the progress of the work recommended following the CCTV survey. It was also inaccurate because the survey had not recommended the replacement of pipe work.
In March 2024, there is evidence the landlord and its contractor were discussing the quote for works recommended by the CCTV survey. However, on 20 May 2024, approximately 3 weeks after it sent the quote, the contractor chased the landlord for approval. The landlord approved the works the following day. This was an unreasonable delay of over 3 months since the CCTV survey.
From the information available it is clear that the landlord faced challenges completing the work to descale and clear the system due to vehicles obstructing access to the relevant manholes. We have not assessed the landlord’s handling of this issue because it has not had the opportunity to consider this via its internal complaint process. However, we have considered whether the landlord’s ongoing communication with the resident about the outstanding work was reasonable.
The resident asked the landlord to keep him updated about when the issue would be resolved. The records show that the resident contacted the landlord requesting further updates on at least 6 occasions between 26 April and 5 August 2024. He repeatedly stressed that the situation was ongoing and he was concerned about the health and safety hazard presented by the sewage. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to all the resident’s requests for contact which was unreasonable. Bearing in mind that the landlord accepted the problem was persistent and there had already been delays, it would have been reasonable for it to provide regular, proactive updates to the resident.
In response to our queries in May 2026, the landlord told us it had completed the work but did not confirm on what date. However, we have seen evidence it was discussing internally the best way to resolve the problem of vehicles obstructing access to the manholes in December 2024. Therefore, the issue remained ongoing until at least December 2024.

Downpipe repair

The landlord identified the leaking downpipe on 27 October 2023. In line with its policy the landlord should have completed the repair within 28 days. Its records show that it booked an appointment for 1 November 2023 and the repair was ‘completed on the system’ on 3 November 2023. However, the landlord did not refer to this repair in the timeline of events in its complaint responses. As mentioned earlier in this report the landlord’s repair records lack detail and clarity. Therefore, we are unable to confirm what actions the landlord took in November 2023.
When the resident escalated the complaint, he said the landlord had not repaired the leaking downpipe on 22 February 2024 as promised in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord responded appropriately when it promptly recalled the work order, apologised for not completing repairs to the downpipe when it attended on 23 February 2024 and acknowledged this had caused delays.
The landlord’s records show it booked appointments for 22 and 29 February. It is unclear if the landlord attended on these dates. Its records do not include reference to it attending on 23 February 2024 as stated in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord marked the work order as ‘completed on the system’ on 14 April 2024. The unreliability of the landlord’s record keeping has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 April 2024. This was in line with its stage 2 commitment to provide an update to the resident within 3 weeks. It said it completed the repair on 9 April 2024. The landlord’s records do not include any reference to it attending on 9 April and say the recalled repair was ‘completed on the system’ on 10 April 2024. The landlord’s records should include clear details of when it attended the property, what actions it undertook and when the repair was practically completed. However, the resident has not disputed that the landlord completed the repair around this date.
It is unclear whether the landlord carried out any repairs to the pipe in November 2023. It took approximately 2 months to complete the repair it raised on 13 February 2024. This exceeds the 28 day timescale set out in its policy for routine repairs.

Conclusion

Throughout the complaint process the resident told the landlord the issues affected him because:
1. the smell from the blocked drains and flooding was disgusting
2. he could not avoid walking through the flooded area by the entrance
3. he was concerned about health and safety
4. water was seeping through the shared wall from the leaking downpipe and causing damage to his property
5. he had previously spent money treating damp and replastering his property because of the leak
6. he had trouble reporting the repairs to the landlord
7. he had not received updates and spent time and effort pursuing the matter.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues amounts to maladministration because it:
1. did not effectively monitor or progress the CCTV survey or drainpipe repairs, which resulted in delays
2. did not provide timely or regular updates which resulted in the resident expending extra effort to chase for information
3. did not acknowledge the resident’s reports that the leaking pipe had caused damage to his property or provide guidance about making an insurance claim
4. did not maintain clear and accurate records to evidence its actions and decision making.
These are failures which adversely impacted the resident. Although the landlord acknowledged persistent drain problems and apologised for delays repairing the downpipe, it did not recognise the impact on the resident. It told us it did not award compensation because the issues were communal and did not affect the water supply or repair to the resident’s property. This is not in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint says it aims to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord issued its complaint responses within the timescale set out in its policy.
The Complaint Handling Code in place at the time says that the landlord should clearly state its decision and the reasons for any decisions it has made in its complaint responses. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it partially upheld the resident’s complaint. However, it does not set out clearly what elements of the complaint it upheld and which it did not. The landlord did not say whether it upheld the resident’s complaint or not in its stage 2 response. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not clearly explain its position and reasoning.
Additionally, in its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that the resident said the leak was causing a bad odour, and he had no way to avoid stepping into it when leaving the building. It also accepted there were frequent blockages and noted its contractor’s report that the gulley was ‘upsurging with sewage’ on 31 January 2024. However, it did not respond to the concerns the resident expressed during the complaint about hygiene, health and safety.
The landlord’s failure to clearly explain its decision about the complaint and fully address the resident’s concerns amounts to service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord needs to keep accurate and complete repair records, ensuring it clearly and consistently records repair priorities, attendance dates, what works it carried out and when it completed works. Recording such information would improve its ability to monitor progress and provide it with an accurate audit trail of the actions it had taken.

Communication

The landlord should ensure it proactively communicates with residents concerning repairs, particularly when repairs are complex and/or delayed. This could have reduced the resident’s frustration, and his time and effort chasing the landlord about the progress of the repairs.