London Borough of Lambeth (202343152)

Background

1. In December 2023, the resident reported a leak from her bathroom ceiling which she said was coming from the property above. The resident later said she wanted the landlord to cover the £500 insurance excess on her buildings insurance claim, relating to damage to her property caused by the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

5. The landlord delayed responding to the leak reports, failed to follow its repairs policy, and did not progress the repair within a reasonable timeframe or keep the resident properly informed. This caused inconvenience, time and trouble. It also did not show it had responded to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the insurance excess.

The complaint handling.

6. The landlord did not act in accordance with its complaint handling policy, with significant delays at both stages and no evidence of agreed extensions. These failings caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.

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 and why

7. In this case, the resident made a claim on the landlord’s leasehold building insurance policy and disputed liability for the policy excess. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the actions of the landlord, for example its communication with the resident. We do not consider the insurer’s decision-making or the terms and application of the insurance policy, such as provisions relating to liability for the excess.
8. The Ombudsman does not normally investigate complaints that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. In this case, we have not seen evidence that any events relating to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the insurance excess, after 11 July 2024, were progressed through the landlord’s complaints process to completion. References to any other events beyond that date are included for context only.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord’s homeowners’ handbook states that leaseholders who experience a leak from a tenanted property should first try to contact the tenant to stop the source. If this is not possible, they should report the issue to the landlord as soon as possible so it can raise a work order for repairs, and the building insurer can consider any claim for damage.
10. The landlord’s Repairs Policy (2024) states that it will respond to reports of a leaking toilet, or a leak from a pipe, tank or cistern, within 1 working day.
11. In an email to the landlord on 23 December 2023, the resident reported a water leak in her bathroom and said the concierge had informed her it was caused by a blocked toilet in the flat above. The resident reasonably understood the concierge to be acting on the landlord’s behalf and therefore she believed that the landlord was aware of the reported leak from this date. We have seen no evidence that this was an ongoing leak that the landlord was required to attend to prior to this report. In her email, she asked the landlord to investigate the leak. However, the landlord did not act on the resident’s report. This was a failing that resulted in an avoidable delay in it progressing the repair.
12. On 25 December 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had arranged for an emergency electrician due to water damage affecting the bathroom light. The electrician removed the existing fitting and installed a temporary light, pending reinstatement once the ceiling was repaired. The resident also said she had contacted the building insurer to make a claim to cover these costs.
13. On 28 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord raised a works order on 9 January 2024 to unblock the toilet in the flat above. The landlord reassigned the work order on 20 January 2024 and recorded it as completed on 22 January 2024. This was 9 working days after the work order was raised and around 1 month after the initial report, which was outside the expected timescale. The main delays arose because the landlord took over 2 weeks to raise the work order following notification of the leak, and it then needed to reassign the works to a different contractor. This resulted in an avoidable delay in addressing the leak and meant the landlord did not provide a reasonable standard of service. The resident was required to spend time and effort pursuing the matter and experienced inconvenience as a result.
14. The homeowners’ handbook states that leaseholders must pay the first £500 of any claim for accidental damage. It also directs residents to make an insurance claim where damage is caused by a leak from another property. On 8 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say she felt it was seeking to avoid liability for the £500 insurance excess on her claim. The claim related to damage to her property caused by the leak. She said the damage arose from the landlord’s failure to repair the toilet within a reasonable period, which led to contaminated water entering her property.
15. In its stage 1 response on 21 May 2024, the landlord said it was for its insurer to determine liability and advised the resident to pursue the insurer directly in relation to her claim. This was consistent with the homeowners’ handbook, which states that the insurer will deal with claims for any damage caused by leaks from a tenanted property into a leaseholder’s home.
16. On 28 May 2024, the resident escalated her complaint and again asked the landlord to consider covering the £500 excess payment, as she considered it responsible for the leak and resulting damage to her property. In its stage 2 response of 11 July 2024, the landlord did not address her request for it to cover the excess payment, refer to its insurance policy, or explain whether it would consider such requests. This contributed to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. The landlord later told this Service that the resident could submit a request for it to consider reimbursing her with the charge and acknowledged it should have made this clear in its complaint responses. We note the landlord should have engaged with the resident and assessed her request for reimbursement on its merits, but it failed to do so.
17. In summary, the landlord’s failings caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble, and contributed to an avoidable delay in resolving the repair.
18. In its final complaint response, the landlord did not offer redress for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused in line with its compensation policy. The landlord showed no evidence of specific learning to prevent similar failings. To reflect the impact on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150, in line with our compensation guidance.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy also allows for extensions of up to 10 working days, provided the resident is informed and revised timescales are agreed.
20. The landlord failed to comply with its policy at both stages. It did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation, nor did it agree any extensions with the resident. The stage 1 response was issued on 21 May 2024, 102 working days after the resident made a formal complaint on 23 December 2023. The stage 2 response was issued on 11 July 2024, 33 working days after the resident escalated the complaint on 28 May 2024. These delays were unreasonable and caused the resident additional time, trouble and inconvenience.
21. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial redress where a service failure has had an adverse impact on a resident. In this case, the landlord did not offer any compensation in recognition of the time and trouble the resident experienced with the delays in its complaint handling.
22. Consequently, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 to the resident, in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

23. The landlord did not manage the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaint policy or the Complaint Handling Code. This reinforces the importance of landlords adhering to complaint handling timescales, promptly acknowledging complaints, and agreeing extensions with residents where delays are unavoidable, in line with the Code.
24. The case also demonstrates the need for landlords to accurately reflect the reasons residents escalate complaints and to address all substantive issues raised, to ensure fair and effective complaint resolution.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The case demonstrates the importance of landlords acting promptly on reports of leaks, particularly where they involve water ingress from another property, in line with its homeowner’s handbook and repair timescales.
26. It also highlights the need for landlords to maintain oversight of repairs to avoid delays caused by internal processes, such as late job raising or contractor reassignment.

Communication

27. The case also demonstrates the importance of landlords explaining its position on insurance-related matters, including whether it can consider reimbursement requests and how residents can make such requests.