Basildon Borough Council (202519152)

Decision
Case ID	202519152
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Basildon Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	23 January 2025

Background

1. The resident lives on the 2nd floor of a 3-storey block. He complained to the landlord about repeated rainwater ingress to his bedroom and living room, causing damp and mouldy conditions. The resident has a respiratory condition. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, he escalated his complaint to this service.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of repairs to the structure and exterior of the building.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaints management.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs to the structure and exterior of the building.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints management.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The evidence shows prolonged delays, inadequate investigation, and ineffective repair attempts over an extended period. The landlord failed to accurately diagnose the underlying cause of the leaks and did not demonstrate effective oversight of its contractor. There were extended periods with no updates or visible progress, and the resident continued to experience water ingress and damp conditions as a result.
7. The landlord’s complaint management in this case lacked anything approaching a reasonable degree of efficacy or resolution focus. It failed to ensure the required level of cohesion across disparate internal and engaged external services. Responses lacked clear reasoning, learning, meaningful apology, or adequate redress. Record‑keeping was poor, preventing the landlord from evidencing compliance with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code. The resident needed to make repeated reports and seek councillor assistance to obtain updates. To date the substantive issue remains unresolved.

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 20 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1100, made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by ongoing water ingress, damp and mould. £300 for time and trouble in making repeated reports, chasing updates, escalating complaints and seeking councillor intervention. £200 for poor complaints management.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 20 February 2026
3	Action plan to progress outstanding repairs a)     The landlord must prepare a clear action plan for completing the outstanding structural works, including: Confirmation of the scope of works. Timescales for scaffolding, contractor attendance and section 20 consultation (where required). Named responsible officers for each stage. Arrangements for providing regular updates to the resident. b)     The landlord must appoint a suitably qualified officer to oversee the completion of structural repairs and act as single point of contact. c)     The plan must be shared with the resident and with this Service.	No later than   20 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord engage with the resident and endeavour to reach an agreed position on: Reimbursement of reasonable dehumidifier and additional energy costs incurred. Whether additional compensation may be appropriate for the period after the internal complaints process was concluded, to recognise the continuing distress and inconvenience caused by the water ingress.  Whether additional compensation may be appropriate for the ongoing damage to internal decorations while the repairs remain unresolved, acknowledging that internal repairs are leaseholder’s responsibility. If it is not possible to reach an agreed position on the above, it is recommended that the landlord open a new complaint for the resident on this matter and / or signpost the resident to a possible claim to its insurer.
It is recommended that relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 March 2023 to 27 September 2024	The resident submitted 4 complaints at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process. Each complaint was about rainwater ingress and the landlord’s management of repairs to the structure and exterior of the building.
23 July 2025	The resident submitted a new stage 1 complaint. He complained that: There were ongoing unresolved rainwater leaks for over 3 years, causing damage, mould, and cracked/blown plaster. Multiple contractor visits had taken place, but there had been no follow‑up, no scaffolding erected, and no updates since June. The landlord had told him to claim on his home insurance despite the issue being a building fault, which the resident believed should be covered by service charges and block insurance. The block was poorly maintained. The resident stated he felt ignored and wanted to live in a home that did not continuously leak.
30 July 2025	The landlord provided its response to the stage 1 complaint. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to delays in work being completed.
Date unknown	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He asked for his complaint and all his previous complaints to be taken into consideration and investigated further. He complained: He had been unfairly treated by the landlord, who had not returned his calls and had not completed repairs, with over 3 years of unresolved leaks. Although he had submitted several complaints and provided photos and other evidence, the leak damage continued to spread to four walls, and he felt it was unfair to make a claim on his personal contents insurance. He expressed frustration at rising service charges, poor block conditions, and the emotional and physical impact of living with ongoing leaks and mould. The resident asked for clarity on who would cover the internal repair costs and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
7 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It partially upheld his complaint due to a lack of communication. It said investigations had been carried out to determine the cause of the issues, and work was in progress of being arranged to rectify the issue.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted this Service on 11 August 2025 seeking the following outcomes: Regular communication and clear updates from the landlord. Completion of necessary repairs to the roof and affected walls. Compensation for the distress and impact the situation has caused.

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	The landlord’s management of repairs to the structure and exterior of the building.
Finding	Maladministration

8. The landlord’s Leaseholder Handbook confirms the landlord’s responsibility for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the building, including external walls, roofs, service pipes, and ducts. Leaseholders are required to contribute a share of the costs for such work. The handbook states that the landlord has target timeframes for completing repairs, although the targets are not set out.
9. The Leaseholder Handbook sets out the landlord is required to consult leaseholders for major works costing more than £250 per property. (Section 20 process).
10. The resident first reported rainwater leaks affecting the external wall of the living room on 23 June 2022. Between 17 August 2022 and 09 March 23, the landlord raised 7 works orders, and it carried out further repairs in May and June 2023. These repairs appeared to resolve the issue because there were no further reports of leaks until January 2024. This period also featured several complaint made by the resident. In the interest of fairness and given the passage of time, this investigation focusses on the period up to and following the reoccurrence of the leaks in January 2024. Any references to previous events are made for contextual purposes only.
11. The resident reported a recurrence of leaks on 8 January 2024. On 6 February, the evidence shows the contractor reported the issue was not a roofing issue. The landlord’s records do not show what works were raised or the outcome of any inspection until 19 April 2024, 73 working days after the resident’s January report of recurrence. This indicates a substantial delay in progressing the repair. There is no evidence seen that the landlord provided the resident with updates or reassurance to demonstrate that it was actively investigating the underlying cause of the leak during this period.
12. On 19 April 2024 the contractor identified the need for scaffolding and pointing works. On 8 May 2024 the landlord’s repair logs record that repairs were needed to an issue with a ring-beam, lead flashing would be re-dressed, re-mastic around windows and coating to waterproof the ring beam. The evidence shows that no works order was raised in respect of the identified repairs until 10 September 2024 some 8 months after the landlord was put on notice.
13. On 17 September 2024, the contractor notified the landlord that it would need scaffolding and 2 operatives for 5 hours to complete the works. On 7 October 2024, the work was scheduled for 12 December 2024, a further 48 working days later. During this period, the resident continued to experience rainwater entering the property, which affected his living conditions. The landlord did not demonstrate proactive steps to meet its responsibility to maintain the structure under its repairing obligations.
14. The landlord confirmed to the resident by email that external works were completed on 12 December 2024. However, on 12 February 2025 the resident reported for the 5th time that the leaks were continuing. The landlord attended on 7 March but was unable to access the roof area due to having the wrong key and had to rearrange to attend on 25 March. This cannot but be viewed as reflective of poor planning and coordination of repair visits.
15. On 25 March 2025 the landlord raised additional works orders, concerning CCTV investigation into rainwater outlets and downpipes, skirting around the tank roof, flashings, and window inspection. However, there is no evidence seen that the landlord reviewed progress or followed up on these works until it received a councillor enquiry on 8 May 2025. This indicates a failure to monitor repairs or maintain oversight of contractor activity.
16. On 14 May 2025, the contractor reported that a previous supervisor had not confirmed all works required before leaving the company and sent a new supervisor to re‑scope the outstanding works. This shows shortcomings in the contractor’s handover processes. The landlord did not appear to identify or challenge these issues proactively.
17. The evidence shows that progress then stalled. The contractor told the landlord that it needed it to authorise scaffolding to establish the extent of the works, so that it could provide an accurate price. The landlord’s records indicate that it did not authorise the scaffolding, but also that it could not proceed without receiving a confirmed price. As a result, the repairs did not move forward between 30 May and 1 September 2025.
18. By 8 July 2025 the landlord had identified that works were likely to require a section 20 consultation process with leaseholders. It was also considering whether the matter would be referred to its Asset Strategy Department. It required clarification of the costs before it could decide its next steps but the stalemate with the contractor impeded progress.
19. The resident told this Service that as of 22 December 2025 he had not received a section 20 Notice and the leaks were continuing, affecting 4 walls in the living room and bedroom of the property.
20. In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord’s efforts to remedy the leaks were exercised in an avoidably extended period of time which was some distance from what might be considered reasonable especially so given the ongoing impacts.
21. This period featured repeated delays in progressing the repairs, including long periods with no updates or demonstrable action. The records also show shortcomings in planning, access arrangements, and coordination with the contractor which resulted in stalled progress over several months.
22. The cumulative effect was that the resident was required to make persistent reports, seek assistance from councillors, and pursue a resolution through the landlord’s complaint process, albeit to no avail. He was forced to continue to live with damp conditions for a prolonged period which affected his living room and bedroom walls and cannot but have engendered distress.
23. Taken together, these shortcomings show that the landlord did not act in line with its obligations, did not demonstrate a reasonable standard of service in its handling and oversight of the repairs, and did not take effective steps to put matters right. The delays show weak project management, a lack of effective oversight and a failure to progress repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
24. The resident suffered distress, inconvenience, and expended substantial time and trouble in pursuing a resolution over a prolonged period. For these reasons, we find maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs to the structure and exterior of the building.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

25. The landlord’s 2025 Complaints Policy is compliant with the Code, with an acknowledgement target of within 5 days and response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 at stage 2.
26. As set out above, this investigation focusses upon the period up to and following the reoccurrence of the leak in January 2024. References to events outside of this timeframe are for contextual purposes only.
27. The resident submitted stage 1 complaints on 15 March 2023, 11 May 2023, around 22 April 2024, and on 27 September 2024. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to the first 3 complaints.
28. The landlord routinely asked its contractor to investigate the complaints. In 1 example, on 15 March 2023 it asked the contractor whether it “upheld” the resident’s complaint. While seeking information was appropriate, delegating the complaint outcome was not. Responsibility for service delivery and complaint decisions rests with the landlord. This indicates a misunderstanding of the landlord’s obligations under its own policy and the Code.
29. On 12 March 2025 the landlord’s insurer offered the resident £475 for damaged items. The offer was paused when the resident informed it that repairs remained incomplete. This shows the resident could not conclude the claim because the underlying defects had not been fixed.
30. Between May 2023 and July 2025, local councillors made 7 enquiries on the resident’s behalf. The resident also submitted 5 formal complaints.
31. The resident submitted a 5th stage 1 complaint on 23 July 2025. The landlord responded on 30 July 2025, 5 working days later. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to delays in remedial works being completed. However, the response did not include an apology, redress or evidence of learning. This was inappropriate, as it did not take reasonable steps to acknowledge the service failures, address the impact on the resident or set out how similar issues would be prevented in future.
32. The stage 2 complaint provided to this Service was undated. It is therefore not possible to confirm when it was submitted, acknowledged, or responded to. This is inconsistent with the Complaint Handling Code and impairs this Service’s ability to assess compliance.
33. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also did not comply with the Code. It did not address all the issues raised, provide clear reasons for its decisions, or reference relevant policies. The apology included in the response “I am sorry for the way you feel this matter was handled” was inappropriate, as its tone shifted the focus onto the resident’s emotions rather than acknowledging service failures. It therefore did not represent a meaningful or accountable apology. The response did not demonstrate an independent or comprehensive review, nor did it identify what had gone wrong, offer a remedy, or show evidence of learning. It also did not consider the impact on the resident or set out actions to prevent recurrence.
34. In summary, the evidence shows a failure to acknowledge or respond to several complaints. The landlord placed over-reliance on the contractor to determine outcomes. It demonstrated insufficient record-keeping. There was an absence of meaningful apology or redress and no evidence of learning or service improvement. The resident consequently experienced prolonged distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not follow its policy or the Code.
35. An effective complaints system should ensure that everyone involved—inside the organisation and any external services it uses—works together properly and takes responsibility, especially when it is clear the landlord is responsible for fixing the problem. The focus should always be on sorting out the issue and putting things right.
36. In this case, even though there were many chances to resolve the problem, it still hasn’t been fixed. Based on the evidence, it’s clear the landlord failed to meet this basic responsibility. For these reasons, the landlord’s handling of the complaint amounted to maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord provided limited records of its interactions with the resident in response to this Service’s request for evidence. Key documents, including complaints correspondence and records of contacts held on its case management system, were not included. The landlord supplied a document containing copied email extracts rather than the original correspondence, which limits the completeness of the evidence available to this investigation.
38. Our spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ states that “If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so. Poor quality or absent records result in the landlord being unable to answer questions or being unable to provide evidence to support its explanation. Records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. A record should be clear about if an action was taken, about who did what, and when; or for planned actions, state who will do what and by when.”

 

Communication

39. The evidence shows that communication between the landlord, its contractor, and the resident was inconsistent. Communication failures contributed significantly to the prolonged delays and the resident’s understandable loss of confidence. An effective communication approach would have ensured regular updates, clear ownership of actions, and timely follow‑up to support repair progression and maintain resident confidence.