Portsmouth City Council (202513777)

Decision
Case ID	202513777
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Portsmouth City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	21 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a block of flats. He had reported a leak in December 2019 which despite repairs, recurred yearly until it was resolved in April 2023 with final plastering works taking place in June 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the compensation offered.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in its handling of the leak and the compensation offered.
2. No maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the leak and compensation offered.

The landlords repeated failure to undertake post work inspections caused the leak to recur which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. While it offered compensation, the offer did not consider the cumulative effect of the leak recurring for a 5 year period.

Complaint handling

While the landlord responded at stage 1, 1 day outside of the published timescale, there was no detriment caused and it followed its policy and the Code in the other aspects of its complaint handling.

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 found in this report. The landlord must ensure: A senior member of staff provides the apology. The apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 18 February 2026
	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £1,200, made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused in the handling of the leak. £500 for the time and trouble caused in the handling of the leak. £200 previously offered for decoration costs. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct any amount previously paid from the total figure.	No later than 18 February 2026
	Take specific action The landlord should refund the £250 to the reserve account as previously offered if it has not done so. It must provide documentary evidence that it has done so.	No later than 18 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 March 2025	The resident raised a formal complaint; the key points were as follows: He had reported a leak in 2019, but the landlord had not repaired it fully for 6 years. It had caused water damage to his furniture and furnishings and caused disruption until the contractor had fixed it in 2024. He had paid fees for maintenance and repairs over the years and wanted to understand how the landlord intended to compensate for the loss of use of his home and damage to belongings. He gave a breakdown of fees paid and the amount requested £12,600 broken down as follows: £600 a year for maintenance x 6 = £3,600 £1000 into the reserve fund x 6 = £6,000 £500 goodwill payment x 6 = £3,000 He asked the landlord to complete a survey of both the structure and cosmetic issues in the property.
28 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
11 April 2025	The landlord gave its stage 1 response; the key points were as follows: It confirmed the resident reported the leak in 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023. On each occasion it had attended with scaffolding and completed works. The leak was repaired fully in April 2023 and plastering works done in June 2024. A review of the repair had shown various attempts to resolve the leak over the years. It had calculated the amount the resident had paid towards the failed repairs. It amounted to £250, which it would refund to the resident’s reserve fund. The resident would need to provide evidence of damaged items to the landlord, including purchase receipts. It apologised for the failed repairs and the inconvenience caused and offered a £200 goodwill payment towards decoration costs. It accepted it had not handled the repair effectively and the area should have water tested on the first occasion to ensure the leak was resolved.
14 April 2025	The resident requested to escalate his complaint. He said he wanted more compensation to cover the cost of redecoration and to cover replacing items in his home. He said he had laid out a full breakdown of payments he had made over the years. He also said he had requested a survey of the property. Instead, he was asked to produce receipts for items he had paid for over a decade ago.
13 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response; the key points were as follows: It understood the resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered and had requested an independent survey of the property. It provided a breakdown of the service charges that the resident had paid since purchasing the property, which totalled £5,902.82. The service charge for repairs had totalled £1,645.79 and the resident had paid £200 in 2019/20 and £250 in 2023/24 towards the leak repairs. It explained the reserve fund, which the resident paid £2,040.72 per year into, was for major works to help spread the cost and it confirmed it had already agreed to refund the £250 paid by the resident for the repairs relating to the roof. It explained the resident should claim for damaged contents on his content’s insurance, but it could contact the landlord if he felt the claims were due to negligence on its part. With regards to the survey, it explained the repairs team had assessed the condition of the block and found some works needed. It explained the senior building surveyor had tried to make an appointment to visit the property and was available if the resident wanted a further inspection visit. It offered a further £300 goodwill payment for the inconvenience caused.
9 September 2025	The resident referred his complaint to us. He remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord.

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	Handling of the leak and the compensation offered
Finding	Maladministration

It is not disputed in this case that the landlord and its contractor attended to the resident’s reports of a leak each year beginning in December 2019 which recurred in 2021 and 2022 and was resolved in April 2023.
On each occasion that it attended, it took around 2 months for the issue to be inspected and resolved, with the final repair taking 7 months to inspect and repair. During which time the resident was living with an intermittent leak dependant on the weather.
However, it is clear from the evidence that the landlord attended to issue, completed the necessary surveys, and inspections with scaffolding and completed the necessary repairs.
While a landlord can reasonably rely on qualified contractors to confirm that a repair is complete, it acknowledged, in the complaint response, that a water test should have been carried out after the first leak to ensure it had resolved the issue. Had it completed this test at the time, the recurring leak, and the resulting distress and inconvenience to the resident, could have been avoided.
It is also important to note that we acknowledge that leaks can be hard to diagnose and it can often be a process of elimination. The leak in this instance occurred yearly and on each occasion the landlord’s contractor attended and undertook a different repair to try to resolve the situation.
However, the landlord failed to carry out the required post-work inspections and testing when the leak reoccurred in 2021 and 2022. This delay prolonged the resolution for the resident and caused further distress and inconvenience. The fact that the landlord did not recognise the need for a post-work inspection until after the fourth repair was unacceptable.
Although the contractor resolved the leak in April 2023, the landlord did not return to complete the plastering of the internal walls until June 2024. The evidence does not explain why this work was delayed, but the timeframe was far beyond the repairs policy and was inappropriate.
Furthermore, it did not complete any further redecorating works in the property to make good the areas of damage. However, it did accept this in the complaint response, apologised and offered £200 compensation towards the decorating. While it was reasonable of the landlord to compensate for the lack of decoration, it did not acknowledge that it had not decorated at any point during the period of the leak. This meant that the resident had completed the make good works himself following each leak. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered this in its response.
As part of the resident’s complaint, he asked for the landlord to complete an independent inspection of both the structure of the property and the cosmetic issues as he noted there were many problems. However, the landlord did not respond to this point in its stage 1 response. This is not in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out that a landlord must reply to all issues raised.
After the stage 1 response, the landlord did raise an inspection of the block and identified works. However, it did not clarify its position about the resident’s request for an independent survey. While the landlord is entitled to use its own in-house surveyors, it should have confirmed its stance to the resident.
In the complaint, the resident also asked to be reimbursed the monies he had paid during the 5 year period towards the leak repair and he provided a breakdown. In offering compensation, the landlord appropriately provided a comprehensive breakdown to the resident of the charges he had paid over the 5 year period in relation to the leak. However, it did not do this till the stage 2 response despite the resident asking the landlord to consider this in its first response.
In its complaint response, the landlord said that it had calculated the amount the resident paid in service charges related to the leak and reimbursed that sum, £250, into the resident’s reserve fund.
However, it did not provide a full and clear breakdown of this calculation until the stage 2 response. Given the resident’s specific request for compensation for maintenance and reserve fund fees, the landlord should have provided this information at the earliest opportunity to provide clarity.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that the resident had contributed service charge payments for the leak repairs in 2019/20 and 2023/24, but it had not charged him for works completed in 2021/22 and 2022/23. It said the absent charges should be viewed as compensation. While it noted the other amounts paid had been refunded to the reserve fund, it was not reasonable for the landlord to consider monies the resident had never paid as part of its overall total compensation offering.
In his complaint, the resident reported losing personal items due to leak damage. In an email dated 8 April 2025, the landlord offered a goodwill payment but requested evidence of the damage, including photos and purchase receipts. It reiterated this in its stage 1 response.
At stage 2, the landlord said it could not compensate for damage to personal items and directed the resident to his content’s insurance. While this was reasonable and aligned with the lease agreement, it was inappropriate to have previously raised expectations of payment if evidence was provided.
It also did not evidence that it had told the resident of the need to claim on his own contents insurance for personal belongings, linking that the relevant policy. Furthermore, it did not signpost him to its own liability insurance if he thought the landlord was responsible for the damage. The landlord needs to ensure it set out this information at the earliest opportunity to ensure it manages the resident’s expectations.
While the landlord responded to each reported leak and carried out repairs, the compensation offered of £300 for distress and inconvenience did not reflect the cumulative impact on the resident and his family in dealing with recurring leaks over several years. The resident described how this affected the enjoyment of his home, yet the landlord did not adequately acknowledge this in its response.
According to our remedy’s guidance, awards of £600–£1,000 are appropriate where failures significantly affect a resident. The landlord’s offer of £300, plus £200 for decoration costs, does not fairly reflect the disruption, time, and effort involved in pursuing repairs for a recurring leak over five years. The landlord’s repeated failure to properly inspect works after the repairs meant the resident endured ongoing repairs and disruption, ultimately diminishing his enjoyment of his home.
While the landlord acknowledged its failings and set out the learning it had undertaken because of this complaint, it did not evidence that it considered the cumulative effect on the resident. As such the landlord in its offer of compensation missed the chance to put things right resulting in a finding of maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it would acknowledge a complaint and escalation request within 5 working days. It would respond to stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and escalation within the set timescales. It responded at stage 1, 1 day outside of its published timescale, however as the delay was minimal there was no detriment caused. It responded at stage 2 within the published timescale.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not demonstrate if it had good communication with the resident throughout the duration of the leaks. Although it responded promptly when the resident requested compensation before making a formal complaint, its responses often lacked detail. The landlord should consider reviewing its approach against our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Record keeping and communication

The landlord’s communication should have been stronger to manage the resident’s expectations. It also lacked an effective working relationship with the contractor, as inspections were missed and decoration works left incomplete. The landlord needs to ensure it has processes in place that enable clear communication throughout the repairs process and with residents.