B3 Living Limited (202319444)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bed ground floor flat, with a terrace. The tenancy started on 14 October 2022, and the landlord completed an end of defects liability survey in March 2023 and found no issues with the balcony. The resident raised issues with water from the balcony and drainage issues in August and September 2023. The landlord arranged a further survey, completed in October 2023 which found latent defects in the overall design of the balconies. The developer completed remedial works and cleaned brickwork in November 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about rainwater from the balcony above and drainage issues.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rainwater from the balcony above and drainage issues.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s concerns about rainwater from the balcony and drainage issues.

4. The landlord delayed in responding to the residents reports of a leaking balcony and drainage issues for just over a month. The resident had to raise further reports before the landlord acted. Although the landlord took positive steps once it logged the issue, and acknowledged its delays, it did not offer any compensation for its failures. Therefore, the landlord missed an early opportunity to put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not follow its own policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process without a valid reason. It acknowledged delays but didn’t offer any redress or show learning.

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.

6. When the resident first contacted us, she raised concerns about meter readings and cracked windowsills. During a call on 8 December 2025, she confirmed the meter reading issue had been resolved. She also said the windowsill matter is part of a separate complaint with the landlord and would only be brought to us if she remains dissatisfied after the landlord’s actions following its most recent final response which we have not seen. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of reports of a water from the balcony above and drainage issues.
7. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, shared owners get a 12-month defect liability period, and defects in that period are handled by the developer. The landlord is responsible for any structural damage after that time. Under its repairs policy, there is no set timeframe to carry out repairs, but scheduling should be agreed with the resident when the issue is reported.
8. The resident raised issues with her balcony and water leaking from other balconies in November 2022 to which the landlord responded timely, and within 4 days that it had discussed this with its surveyor. It explained that the surveyor had advised the balconies were designed as such to free drain water and this was not a structural defect.
9. This was confirmed in March 2023 during the end of liability survey, where no defects were identified. We have also seen further internal correspondence confirming that the plans of the balconies had been signed out by building control the way they were designed, and this was in regulation. While we have not seen evidence confirming it, this was not disputed by the resident.
10. The resident raised concerns about the balcony leaks and the discolouring in August and September 2023. She said water had leaked from the balcony above and turned the bricks green. She added that the rainwater could not drain properly due to her property’s drainage position. The landlord didn’t log the issue orrespond to the resident until 28 September 2023, after the resident further chased an update from the landlord.This was an unreasonable delay and caused the resident time and inconvenience.
11. However, once the landlord logged the issues on 28 September 2023, it took appropriate steps in line with its obligations. The steps were as follows:
    1. The landlord arranged a survey in October 2023 to properties affected by reports of balcony defects which found a latent defect with the balcony design.
    2. It communicated effectively with its developer, who had accepted responsibility of the balcony and drainage and had agreed to carry out remedial works. The developer was responsible then for communicating appointments with the resident.
    3. The landlord communicated its resolution plan to the resident in its stage 1 response. It apologised for delays in its communication.
    4. The developer completed the remedial works to the building in November 2023, including installed flashing, and replaced the gasket.
    5. The developer cleaned the resident’s bricks on 21 November 2023.
    6. The landlord offered for the developer to return again when the resident said she was not happy with the cleaning of the bricks, but the resident declined stating it was a waste of time.
    7. The landlord explained in it stage 2 response that the balconies had been approved by building control and the warranty provider. It said it was normal for the drainage to differ from neighbouring properties. It provided details on how to maintain the drainage system as per the lease terms. It further explained that the balconies were not designed to be watertight. It demonstrated as such effective communication and engagement with the issue.
    8. While it’s not clear when the landlord sent an incorrect photograph of the resident’s property, it acknowledged this failure and apologised in its second stage 2 response. It confirmed this hadn’t prevented the landlord from investigating the complaint. While this failure may have caused some frustration and distress to the resident, this explanation was reasonable.
12. We found in this case that the landlord had responsibility to clearly communicate and engage with the developer to resolve the issue. The landlord took appropriate steps after it logged the resident’s concerns. We have seen evidence that it considered various options with the developer and actively engaged in arranging repairs. Given there were no concerns raised with the landlord about the internals of the resident’s property, the landlord took appropriate action. However, if these circumstances change, the resident should report it to the landlord to explore further resolution.
13. However, it failed to respond timely initially when the resident raised water from the balcony and drainage issues in August 2023, taking just over 1 month. Although the landlord acknowledged communication delays in its complaint response at stage 1, it did not do so at stage 2. As such, it didn’t clarify the full period of those delays or the reasons for its apology. Additionally, it did not offer any financial remedy to put things right for its failures in communication, including the errors in the photographs to recognise the inconvenience caused.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy mirrors our Code. Its policy says it must acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It should respond to stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. If it cannot meet these timeframes, it can extend both stages up to 10 days with explanation. It can also refuse to escalate a complaint to stage 2 under certain circumstances and it should provide a written reason for refusal to the resident.
15. The landlord should have logged and acknowledged the Stage 1 complaint by 30 August 2023 but did so on 28 September 2023, a month late and outside its policy and the Code. It should have responded by 12 October 2023 but only did so on 25 October 2023, 10 days outside its complaint’s timeframe.
16. The landlord refused the resident’s first escalation request on 5 November 2023, stating it needed more time to resolve the issue. This is not a valid reason under its complaints policy which allows escalation if the resident is unhappy with the Stage 1 response. The resident requested escalation again on 7 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the request on 8 December and responded on 2 January 2024, within timeframes for the second request. However, it should have accepted the original escalation, and by not doing so it caused further delays in the complaint handling.
17. Furthermore, the landlord provided a second stage 2 response on 23 February 2024, which is not in line with its complaints policy or the Code. We do encourage landlords to provide as early resolution as possible. However, a second stage 2 response suggests more stages of complaint process and confusion to the resident as to what stage the complaint is.
18. The landlord’s failures in this case caused inconvenience and time and trouble for the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer compensation for justified complaints where poor service caused inconvenience to the resident. The landlord didn’t offer any compensation and missed an early chance to put things right during its complaints process.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. We were able to make a robust decision on the evidence available, but in the future the landlord might benefit from improving its record keeping with logging evidence of its communication with residents.

Communication

20. The landlord showed delays in its communication to the resident initially. However, it showed active engagement with the developer and the resident after it acknowledged her complaint.