Brighton and Hove City Council (202509258)

Decision
Case ID	202509258
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Brighton and Hove City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	20 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lived with her daughter in a 2-bedroom flat, within a tower block. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reports of water ingress over the past 7 years. She complained that she had reported the water ingress multiple times over the years, but the landlord had taken no action. She told the landlord she could no longer live in the property due to the leak and associated disruption. The resident informed the landlord that she wished to be rehoused if the leak could not be resolved. She requested compensation for damaged items and for the distress and inconvenience of having to live with the leak over a prolonged period.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to reports of a leak.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the reports of a leak.
5. The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The resident had reported a leak in her property since 2018. Following her complaint in April 2025, the landlord agreed it had not responded to her reports appropriately. It offered £600 compensation for its handling of the repair, and £100 compensation for its handling of the associated complaint.
7. The landlord’s offer would have amounted to reasonable redress if it had promptly resolved the substantive issue. However, we found there had been further delays following its stage 2 response. We ordered the landlord to pay an additional £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the additional repair delay caused.

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 provided by a member of the landlord’s management team. 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 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 compensation made up as follows: £600 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for the failures identified in relation to the leak and any distress and inconvenience caused. £200 additional compensation for the repair delays following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. 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 made.	No later than 20 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pay the resident the £100 it offered in its stage 2 response letter for its handling of the complaint, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 April 2025	The resident raised her stage 1 complaint, stating: Water had been leaking through the property’s walls for the past 7 years. She had reported the leak on multiple occasions, and despite pursuing the repairs and being promised call backs, the landlord had taken no action. She had recently been told the landlord had no records of the leak prior to 2023, and the landlord was unlikely to complete repairs. The leak had caused damage to her personal belongings. The leak was close to a nearby electrical socket. Water had entered a pet enclosure. She wished to be compensated for damaged personal belongings, and for having to live with the leak for a prolonged period. If the landlord could not resolve the leak, she would like to be rehoused.
16 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response, stating:   Repairs prior to 1 April 2020 were managed by an external contractor and the landlord did not have records from this time. It was unable to locate a job raised in April 2023 or under the reference the resident had provided. But it apologised if any previous reports had not been responded to appropriately. To resolve matters, it had arranged for its building supervisor to attend on 3 June 2025 to investigate the cause of the leak and confirm any necessary repairs. It would monitor the job, and subsequent jobs, to completion. The landlord provided the resident a claim form to submit a claim for her damaged personal items.
29 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure as she remained unhappy following it stage 1 response.
3 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, stating:   It was sorry the resident had experienced water ingress since 2018. While it noted the water ingress was not continuous, it recognised this had been distressing. It did not have access to records prior to 2020. Information post 2020 was limited, but it appeared repairs had been passed between different teams to resolve. There was evidence of previous repair attempts, but these had failed and water had entered the property through gaps in the window frames. Major works were planned in 2022. This may have offered a long-term solution to the water ingress. These works were paused so a large-scale structural survey of the tower block could be carried out. Following the structural survey, it was awaiting a decision on the future of the tower block, and no major works would be carried out in the foreseeable future. Due to the nature of the decision and time taken, it had not been possible to discuss it with residents. So, the landlord could not inform the resident about the reasons for the delay to repairs. It had arranged short-term repairs, and these could have been arranged sooner. It had not managed the resident’s expectations or been proactive in its communication relating to the repairs. The landlord noted it had attempted repairs previously and said the water ingress only happened in certain conditions. Taking this and its failure to resolve the issue sooner into account, it offered £600 compensation.   The landlord recognised that it had not sent its stage 2 response within its 20-working days deadline. It offered the resident £100 for this.   The landlord attached the relevant form for the resident to claim for her damaged personal belongings.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to the leak, so she referred her complaint to our Service, stating: Rainwater continued to enter the property during wet and windy weather. The leak and associated disruption had severely impacted her and her daughter’s quality of life. She was concerned about the long-term health impact of living in a damp property. She noted her daughter had multiple hospital visits for respiratory issues when she was younger.   To resolve matters, the resident asked for the landlord to complete an urgent and permanent repair or reconsider rehousing her if a repair was not possible. She also requested compensation for the impact of living with the leak for a prolonged period of time and for damage to her personal items.   Recently, the resident has informed us that:   She moved out of the property in December 2025 due to the tower block’s regeneration. Prior to this, the landlord did not resolve the leak. She would like a formal apology from the landlord for having to live with the leak for around 8 years. She would like it to be recognised that the property had not been repaired by the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response.

 

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 response to reports of a leak.
Finding	Maladministration

8. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to reports of the leak dating back to around 2018. We expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time of the issue occurring. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate and resolve matters while they are ‘live’ and ongoing. Additionally, as time passes evidence usually becomes less available and reliable. Therefore, we do not normally investigate historical issues. Rather, we consider events within a reasonable time prior to the complaint, usually 12 months. The resident made her formal complaint in April 2025, in the interest of fairness, we have considered events from April 2024 onwards. Any reference to events prior to April 2024 is for context only.
9. We may not consider new events or occurrences after the date of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. However, we have considered whether the landlord has met the commitments made in its complaint responses.
10. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and interior of the property. Windows are considered part of the structure of the property. The landlord’s repair policy lists window repairs amongst the repairs it is responsible for. Therefore, the landlord has both a statutory and policy obligation to keep the windows in good repair.
11. The landlord made a decision in 2022 to stop carrying out any major works to the tower block pending the findings of a structural survey and a decision on the potential demolition of the block. However, it remained the landlord’s obligation to keep the structure of the property in good repair in accordance with its policy and statutory obligations.
12. The landlord’s repair policy treats non-emergency repairs as routine repairs and says these will be completed within 20-working days. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it aims to complete routine repairs in 28 days. The resident reported the leak in November and December 2018, April 2019, October and November 2020, December 2022, January 2023, and September 2024.
13. The landlord does not dispute that the resident has experienced water entering the property since 2018. Nor does it dispute that by the date of its stage 2 response, 3 July 2025, it had failed to resolve the leak. The landlord was aware of the leak and failed to sufficiently resolve it during the entire period that is within the scope of this investigation. This was significantly outside of its repair timeframe.
14. However, the landlord has acknowledged the repair delays which resulted in the continued water ingress into the property. As the landlord’s poor handling of the repairs is not in dispute, the question we must consider is whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve matters.
15. The resident has told us about the impact the leak has had on her. She has said:
    1. The water ingress had caused damage to her personal belongings.
    2. She had concerns about the long-term health impact of living in damp conditions.
    3. She was repeatedly disturbed by the sound of dripping water throughout the night.
    4. She would have to frequently wake up to empty water containers and replace soaked towels.
    5. Dealing with the leak had left her feeling exhausted.
    6. Water leaked into her daughter’s bedroom, including into an animal pen and near an electrical socket, causing concern.
16. Claims for damage to personal belongings are usually addressed through an insurance claim. In its complaint responses the landlord provided the resident information on how to claim for damaged items through its insurance. This was reasonable and appropriate.
17. Emails from the landlord indicate that on 5 July 2025 it agreed to pay the resident £960 without the need for her to raise an insurance claim. This was the amount the resident wished to claim for the alleged damage to her personal belongings. The landlord’s decision to pay the £960 was made after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaint procedure. It therefore falls outside of the scope of this investigation. It is also not the role of this Service to make determinations on liability or negligence. So, in any event we would be limited in what we would be able to consider regarding this.
18. The resident has also told us about her health-related concerns. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any potential injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause of any injury and how long it may last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
19. It is evident the resident has experienced significant distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s handling of the repairs, as well as time and trouble in pursuing the repair. Additionally, there is no dispute that the landlord’s communication has been poor, and it failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will follow our Service’s guidance on remedies to establish whether compensation is appropriate.
20. Our remedies guidance says compensation of between £600 and £1,000 may be fair and reasonable where there has been a failure which has had a significant negative impact on a resident. Awards towards the higher end may be appropriate where there has been a significant or potentially permanent negative impact. Compensation of up to £600 may be fair where there is no permanent impact on the resident. On balance, we are satisfied that £600 compensation appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
21. However, in order to fairly resolve a complaint, we normally expect a landlord to adhere to any commitments made in its stage 2 response letter. In this case, the landlord said it would arrange repairs to provide a short-term solution to the water ingress. So, we would have expected the landlord to start these repairs within a reasonable period of time after issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
22. The landlord did not start repairs until 18 September 2025, which was 77 days after its stage 2 response. This also fell outside of the landlord’s repair timeframe. This was a further delay in resolving the leak.
23. The additional delay clearly caused the resident further distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble pursuing the matter. This is evidenced by her email to the landlord on 1 September 2025 following the stage 2 response. The landlord’s email on 2 September 2025 states the delay was largely due to the time it took the landlord to find a repair contractor able to abseil down the building. We recognise arranging specialist repair contractors can take time. However, we are not satisfied the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations in relation to the repair timeframe following its stage 2 response. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration by the landlord in response to the reports of a leak.
24. To ensure the overall adverse impact the additional delay had on the resident is recognised, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation, in addition to the £600 it has offered. £200 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a delay of up to a few months which has caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
25. The landlord’s records indicate the September 2025 repairs did not resolve the leak, and further work was completed in November 2025. The resident has told us the landlord did not complete an effective repair, and she moved out of the property in December 2025 due to the planned demolition of the tower block. The landlord’s handling of repairs after its stage 2 response is outside of the scope of this investigation. This is because it did not form part of the complaint that the landlord investigated through its internal complaint procedure. Therefore, we have not considered its handling of these repairs. The resident is free to complain directly to the landlord about its handling of the repairs, if necessary.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

26. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets the standards and best practice the landlord must follow when handling a complaint, including how and when landlords must answer complaints.
27. The landlord should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5-working days. The landlord should respond to complaints in 10-working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1 and 20-working days at stage 2.
28. The resident made her complaint on 4 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day, so within the required timeframe. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 16 April 2025, which was 8-working days from its complaint acknowledgment. So, this was within the required timeframe.
29. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 29 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day, so within the required timeframe. On 5 June 2025 the landlord informed the resident of a delay to its stage 2 response. It said this was due to an increased number of complaints and unexpected staff absences. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 July 2025. This was 45 working days after its stage 2 acknowledgment. So, the landlord caused a delay here. The landlord has acknowledged this delay in its complaint response and offered £100 in compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused.
30. In accordance with the Code, the landlord was required to answer all complaint points raised in the complaint definition. In the resident’s complaint correspondence dated 4 April 2025 and 1 May 2025 she asked the landlord to consider rehousing her if repairs were not possible. The landlord did not address this in its complaint response. Nor has it demonstrated it considered the resident’s request to be rehoused during its response to the substantive issue.
31. Under our remedies guidance compensation of up to £100 may be appropriate where a service failure results in minor distress and inconvenience but does not significantly change the overall outcome for the resident. We have not seen any evidence indicating that the delay had a greater impact on the resident that would justify increasing this amount. There is no evidence the outcome would have been significantly different if the landlord had addressed the resident’s complaint point regarding rehousing. Though, it remains it ought to have considered this. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
32. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 April 2025 in response to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. In this correspondence it stated it would either:
    1. Investigate her complaint in full.
    2. Refer it back to the service team.
    3. Or close the complaint if it is unlikely that further consideration would achieve anything for the resident.
33. The Code says the landlord must progress a complaint to stage 2 of its process if all or part of the resident’s complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1. A decision to close the complaint on the basis the landlord believed nothing else could be achieved for the resident would not have been in line with the Code. In this case the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2, so the resident was not adversely affected.

Learning

34. There were significant delays prior to its decision to pause major work on the building. The landlord could improve matters by ensuring it has an effective system in place to record, monitor, and follow-up on reported repairs.
35. There were further significant delays following the landlord’s decision to pause major works. While we recognise the wider circumstances surrounding the tower block, the landlord’s statutory and policy repair obligations remained. The landlord should have processes and procedures to ensure it meets its repair obligations in such circumstances.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. Knowledge and information management is the foundation of an effective service delivery and good record keeping is a core component of effective communication with residents. When managing records landlords should:
    1. Monitor progress and have accessible records of appointments, inspection reports, work orders and completion dates for in-house repairs service and repair contractors.
    2. Monitor and address poor performance of an agent or contractor it has appointed.
37. The landlord was unable to access records prior to 2020 and had to rely on the resident’s records. The landlord may improve matters by ensuring it has systems in place to accurately record contact from residents, including where contact is made to repair contractors or other agents of the landlord. We recognise that as time passes historical records may not be retained.

Communication

38. The landlord has said it could not confirm why it had paused major repairs. However, it does not dispute that it failed to manage the resident’s expectations around repairs. Landlords should ensure clear communication with residents about the repair process including:
    1. Clear information on when the repairs are expected to be completed and keep them informed on the progress.
    2. Monitor the impact of any deterioration while the repairs remain outstanding and take action where required once a repair has been identified, agree actions and timescales for responding in line with policies and obligations and confirm these in writing.
39. Following the resident’s stage 2 escalation, the landlord sent correspondence indicating it may close the complaint without escalating this to stage 2. The landlord should ensure its internal complaint procedure aligns with the Code. It should ensure its complaint handling staff understand and apply the Code. The landlord may wish to review the complaint handling training available on our Learning Hub.