Clarion Housing Association Limited (202123207)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123207

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 July 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A leak into the resident’s property from the flat above.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a one bedroom ground floor flat. The resident purchased the lease on 1 October 2020. The building comprises of three flats. The leaseholder’s flat is on the ground floor and there are social rented flats on the first and second floors. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
The flat above the resident’s property was occupied by a tenant of the landlord at the time of the complaint. Due to data protection legislation, this Service is unable to share any personal or sensitive information in relation to the tenant. Therefore, there may appear to be periods of time where the landlord has not taken any action but it did liaise with statutory agencies once they became involved. Where it is appropriate, the upstairs tenant shall be referred to as ‘the neighbour’ throughout this report.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

The landlord has repairing responsibilities and legal obligations in relation to the neighbour’s property:
1. Under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must:
  1. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, gutter, drains and pipes.
  2. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations for water, gas and electricity, and basins, sinks, baths and toilets. This includes water tanks and pipes, gas pipes, boilers, electrical wiring, radiators and any other installation for space heating and water heating.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Stage one complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage two complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 6 January 2021, the resident reported a water leak coming through her living room ceiling to the landlord. The landlord attempted to gain access to the flat above to resolve the leak, however the neighbour did not provide access. The landlord raised a tenancy breach due to the lack of access on 2 February 2021.
The resident commissioned a damp and timber specialist report and forwarded it to the landlord on 3 February 2021. The report noted:
1. Visual yellowing and dampness to the party wall of the second reception room. The area was also found to be extremely wet.
2. Free water dripping from cracks within the ceiling that showed an ongoing water leak from above. The ceiling was slightly springy which was a sign that the plasterboard was becoming rotten and bowed and could lead to the ceiling falling down, which was considered a health and safety hazard.
3. The property was unfit for habitation due to the risk of the ceiling falling down and obvious dampness and leakage. The resident was advised to remain out of the property.
The landlord raised an emergency repair and attempted to access the neighbour’s property on 8 February 2021. The neighbour did not provide access.
On 16 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord for an update. The landlord made enquiries and told the resident that the contractor had been unable to gain access to the upstairs flat on 8 February 2021. The resident chased the landlord again on 3 March 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 March 2021 for an update on the leak. The resident told the landlord that she had moved out of the property as she was concerned that the ceiling would collapse.
On 19 March 2021, the landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s property to complete an inspection due to a request by the resident to make improvements to the bathroom. An inspection of the neighbour’s flat took place on 15 April 2021.
The landlord contacted the neighbour again on 2 June 2021 to arrange access. The neighbour told the landlord that she had always allowed access for repairs. She said that the leak was from the flat above. The landlord said it would raise a repair for the following week. The landlord also sent the neighbour a warning letter for breach of tenancy.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 June 2021 as she had been unable to live in her flat since January 2021. She said:
1. She had reported the leak to the landlord in January 2021.
2. She had contacted a damp and timber specialist to determine the cause of the leak and she attached a copy of the report.
3. She had contacted the landlord on many occasions to ask it to inspect the upstairs flat and make repairs. However, water was still leaking into her flat 5 months later. She had been unable to move into her flat as it was unsafe.
4. The leak had been ongoing for 3 years and had affected the adjoining property.
5. Under the Housing Act 1988, the landlord had a responsibility, with reasonable notice, to access the flat above to assess and effect repairs.
6. The tenant had caused a nuisance, annoyance and a detrimental financial impact by refusing entry for repairs. The situation had had a detrimental effect on her mental health due to the ongoing stress.
7. She required the landlord to:
  1. Make the repairs as a matter of urgency.
  2. Pay initial compensation of £6638.46 by 27 June 2021.
  3. Provide written confirmation, after the repairs had been completed, of the repair work that had been completed and the date they were completed.
The landlord contacted the neighbour on 7 June 2021 to arrange the repair. The neighbour said it was nothing to do with her flat as it was from the flat above.
A further joint inspection of the neighbour’s flat took place on 1 July 2021. The landlord noted concerns of a fire risk and considered the possibility of moving the neighbour into alternative accommodation so that the required work could commence. The landlord raised concerns internally due to the potential fire risk.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 July 2021. It said that it had contacted its insurance team and it had been advised that the resident should contact the insurers to discuss options for alternative accommodation. The landlord provided the resident with the relevant contact details and sent a follow up confirmation email the following day.
Between 12 July 2021 and 14 July 2021, the landlord considered its options and noted:
1. This was a complex case and it would need to explore and exhaust all support options before pursuing action for a tenancy breach against the neighbour.
2. That the tenancy breach case, which had been open since February 2021, did not contain all the relevant information and did not refer to all highlighted concerns. The issue with the resident’s flat and the tenancy breach had been dealt with completely separately.
3. There was no evidence that the resident’s flat was unsafe, therefore it would arrange an inspection of the property.
4. The resident had been informed of the complexities, however there was no clear solution to the water ingress problem, due to issues accessing the neighbouring property.
An action plan for access and completion of the repair was completed with the neighbour on 2 August 2021.
A case conference took place on 11 August 2021. The landlord agreed that the next actions would be to inspect the resident’s flat and complete a joint inspection of the neighbour’s flat.
The landlord attempted to engage with the neighbour between 7 September 2021 and 14 September 2021. When this failed, the landlord said that it would seek assistance from other statutory agencies.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord received an update from its insurers. The insurers confirmed that they had appointed a loss adjuster, who had been in contact with the resident. The loss adjuster had attended the resident’s property and noted the circumstances. Following this, the insurers had agreed to assist with the remedial works required at the resident’s property and agreed to contribute towards the resident’s rental costs for alternative accommodation. The insurers said that they would like the leak to be resolved as soon as possible, although they recognised that this was a complex situation. The landlord said that it would eliminate the top floor flat as the source of the leak and look to enforce access to the neighbour’s property to locate the leak and effect a repair.
During the inspection of the resident’s flat, the loss adjuster noted that there was damage to the bathroom ceiling joists which supported the floor above. The landlord logged the potential health and safety concerns and requested an urgent assessment as to whether the neighbour should be decanted to another property on safety grounds.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord sought advice from its legal team. On 30 September 2021, the landlord’s legal team provided the landlord with preliminary advice.
A multi-agency meeting took place on 18 October 2021 to discuss a way forward and an internal case conference was held on 2 November 2021. It was agreed that the landlord would send a letter to the neighbour, confirming the current position and possible consequences of not allowing access or assisting the landlord to complete the required work.
On 16 November 2021, the landlord’s surveyor met the resident at her flat. The resident expressed her concern due to the delays and ongoing issues with the neighbour.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord hand delivered a letter to the neighbour’s property which set out the landlord’s access requirements and consequences of continued non engagement.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 January 2022 as she had not received a response to her complaint.
A suitable alternative property for the neighbour was identified by the landlord on 21 January 2022. The landlord also agreed to put acrow props in the resident’s property to provide stability to her ceiling and the neighbour’s floor joists. Multi-agency meetings continued between 18 February 2022 and 25 February 2022.
The landlord sent the resident a stage one complaint response on 4 March 2022. It said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in providing a response to the complaint.
2. It needed to liaise with a number of agencies in order to engage with the neighbour in the flat above and facilitate moving forward with the repair.
3. It had carried out a number of inspections to the resident’s property, and due to the risk of the bathroom ceiling collapsing, it had installed an acrow prop as an interim measure. It was sorry that this had taken longer than it would have liked to put in place.
4. It had not taken action as quickly as it should have. There had been a number of different teams involved and work between those teams had not been as coordinated as it should have been. This had led to some duplication of work and a lack of shared understanding of the history of the case, which resulted in the delays.
5. It apologised for the length of time that the complaint had been open, which had hindered the resident’s ability to escalate the case to stage two, although it pointed out that the level of complaint investigation had not materially affected its progress in the matter. It appreciated that this had caused a great deal of distress to the resident as she had been unable to move into her new home.
6. An agreed action plan was now in place to resolve the leak and address the damage to the resident’s flat. It did not have a specific timeframe for when the works would be completed, as there were a number of variables that could affect the outcome.
7. It would contact the resident by 16 March 2022 and provide further regular updates.
8. It appreciated that the delays had been very frustrating for the resident and the source of the leak had not yet been confirmed, which was key to determining what works were required to put it right. The work would likely be extensive, and the resolution could take some time to achieve. Once the leak was resolved, any remedial works to the resident’s home would be addressed.
9. The resident was being reimbursed by its insurer for the rental payments and council tax payments on the alternative accommodation. However, it noted that the resident had requested to be reimbursed for council tax, service charges and mortgage payments for the period of time that she had been unable to occupy the property, plus compensation for the inconvenience caused.
10. It had considered the circumstances and following advice from its insurance team; it would like to award a payment of £2044 (14 months at £146 per month) which reimbursed the council tax payments up to March 2022. It would also continue to pay for this whilst the resident was in temporary accommodation.
11. It would not refund the resident’s regular mortgage payments as it represented the resident’s investment in the property itself and the investment was not directly affected by the circumstances of the repairs needed, as the objective was to complete the repairs as soon as possible and return the property back to a liveable standard. As the temporary accommodation costs were being covered by the insurance company, the resident did not have any additional costs than she would have had, had the leak not occurred.
12. It would reimburse the resident for the service charges and fees with the exception of the buildings insurance and sinking fund elements. This was because the resident had either had, or would receive, the benefit of these payments. It agreed to pay £642.99 in compensation.
13. It had considered the significant inconvenience that the resident had experienced and how the circumstances had impacted her over the previous 12 months, and it allowed for an additional six months for the issues to be resolved. It agreed to pay a total of £4187 in compensation, made up of £1500 discretionary payment, £643 reimbursement of service charge costs and £2044 reimbursement of council tax.
The resident sent a letter to the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two on 13 March 2022, as she was dissatisfied with the response. She gave the following reasons:
1. Over a year had passed with no progress. Nothing in the response indicated that the landlord had any commitment to ever rectifying the situation and it implied that, at best, it would likely take years.
2. The situation had had a significant effect on her life, and caused a great deal of stress, anxiety and inconvenience. The landlord had not been supportive during the difficult time.
3. She appreciated the offer to pay her council tax of £146 per month, however the insurers were covering a portion of her council tax, therefore the amount needed to be adjusted to £58.37 per month from February 2021 onwards.
4. She understood the explanation in relation to the mortgage payment, however she was paying a significant sum towards a mortgage with the expectation of a certain standard of living. When the issue first arose, she had to fund the mortgage in addition to the rent for a house share property, rather than enjoy living alone in her new flat. She had not been advised that she could claim the cost of the rental property through the insurance company for several months.
5. The offer of £1500 compensation to cover the period from February 2021 to August 2021 did not adequately compensate her for the stress and inconvenience of not being able to move in and enjoy her property.
6. The landlord had not provided adequate updates or kept her informed of progress.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor and there had been excessive delays in responding to complaints. There was also a lack of concern for her personal safety.
8. The state of the flat was considerably worse, water had affected the electrics, mould had appeared on the living room ceiling and the water damage had affected two walls.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on 22 April 2022. It said that it was working towards permanently rehousing the neighbour and a property had been identified, although that property did require some repairs before it would be ready to let.
The landlord sent the resident a final stage 2 response letter on 11 May 2022. It said:
1. It apologised for the delays in responding to the complaint.
2. It was sorry that the resident had not felt supported through the process. It had attempted to put this right by providing a single point of contact who could provide regular updates.
3. It was sorry that it was unable to expand on the detail it could provide as this was directly related to the neighbour’s personal circumstances and the input of statutory services. Therefore, the limited information provided at stage 1 was both necessary and proportionate.
4. It was a highly complex matter that demanded careful case management. It was acting on legal advice and it remained committed to remedying the situation as quickly as possible. It was exhausting non-legal remedies and was attempting to rehouse the neighbour, although it was unable to rule out needing to take legal action to resolve the matter. It was also unable to provide a clear time frame due to the complexity of the case and various factors that sat outside of its control. It apologised and considered its previous commitment to keep the resident regularly updated and to compensate her up until the point that she was able to return to her property both reasonable and proportionate.
5. She had been updated on 16 March 2022, 20 April 2022 and 22 April 2022. The latest update had been sent on 26 April 2022. It would continue to provide updates; however, it was not in a position to provide a clear timeframe but would do as soon as there was a realistic prospect of rehousing the neighbour.
6. It would keep her updated on the status of repair to the void property, as this would provide her with a broad indication of the timescales it was working towards. The property was subject to a sewage leak from a neighbouring property, which was owned by another registered provider of social housing. Its repairs team had been liaising with them so that they could bring the property to a lettable standard as soon as possible.
7. It had revised the compensation relating to council tax to £817.18 and confirmed that it would continue to pay this whilst the resident was in temporary accommodation.
8. It had reviewed its reimbursement offer of ground rent and service charges and noted that it had made an error in the service charge calculation. It had arrived at a total reimbursement of £114.23, when it should have been £64.22, however it would honour the reimbursement figure of £114.23. The total to be reimbursed was £665.19.
9. It had reviewed the compensation payment for the significant inconvenience and as a goodwill gesture it had been increased to £2726.82, although it had taken note of the request to put the matter of compensation on hold pending the full resolution of the matter.
10. The revised compensation was a total payment of £4,259.19. This was made up of £50 for the overdue stage 2 response, £2726.82 in recognition of failure to address the ongoing leak over a considerable period and the inconvenience caused, £665.19 reimbursement of service charge costs and £817.18 reimbursement of council tax.
The resident contacted the landlord by webchat on 2 September 2022. She informed the landlord that she had visited her property and the water damage had got worse. She said the living room ceiling looked as though it was about to collapse and the bathroom water damage had got a lot worse. She also said that she was worried about the electrics.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 October 2022. She said:
1. She had first reported the issue in January 2021, which was 20 months previously, and she had not been able to live in her property since.
2. There had been no resolution or repairs carried out and water had continued to leak into her property during that time.
3. Her property had deteriorated considerably since first reporting the leak and it was now in a dangerous state. The floorboards of the flat above were rotten and there was water in the electrics. Water damage and mould had spread across two walls, ceilings and the loft space. The living room ceiling was on the verge of collapse and there was no support structure or props in the living room to prevent the ceiling from collapse.
4. She had not received an update since 9 May 2022 and after numerous attempts to make contact, she had not received a response.
5. She had been living in rented accommodation for 19 months and the landlord had not supported her and caused her a great deal of stress, frustration and had negatively affected her mental health.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 October 2022 as she had not received an update despite multiple attempts. The resident asked the landlord to respond to her as a matter of urgency and provide an update as to when the neighbour was moving out of the flat above, when her property would be made safe and when the repairs would be undertaken. She said that it had been impossible to obtain an update since May 2022.
The landlord responded on 18 October 2022. It said that it was waiting for a manager and its legal department to put together a response, and it would provide an update as soon as it could.
On 26 October 2022, the landlord sent an update by email to the resident. It apologised for not maintaining contact as previously agreed and it confirmed that it was still working towards permanently rehousing the neighbour. It said that it could not rule out legal action, as the move was dependent on the neighbour accepting the available property.
In an internal email dated 27 October 2022, the landlord confirmed that it had changed the lock to the communal door of the resident’s block. As the resident’s flat was currently unoccupied, it had fitted a new key safe next to the window for when the resident needed to access the building.
On 31 October 2022, the resident attended her property to allow access for a fire system check. On her arrival, the resident could not access the communal entrance as the landlord had changed the locks and not provided her with a new key. She had to ask an operative to allow her access to the building. Upon entry to her flat, she found that both the living room ceiling and bathroom ceiling had collapsed. She immediately contacted the landlord.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord informed a partner agency that the alternative property for the neighbour was ready to let.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 November 2022 to provide an update. It said that the neighbour was still in agreement to move and it was trying to arrange a viewing with the neighbour and a representative from a partner agency. It was waiting for the representative of the partner agency to respond; however, it would continue to chase this and would keep her updated. In terms of the works to her property, it understood that the works would be carried out under the insurance policy, however it had asked the surveyor and insurance to confirm this.
On 25 November 2022, the neighbour signed up for the new property. However, vacant possession of the other property had not been given to the landlord.
The resident sent the landlord a further letter dated 6 December 2022. She said:
1. When she had visited her flat on 31 October 2022, she discovered that her key did not work and she was unable to get in through the communal door. The landlord had not given her any notice that the locks were to be changed or provided her with a new key.
2. Once she had gained access, she discovered that her ceilings in the bathroom and living room had collapsed and there was mould throughout the flat. Something hard and heavy had come through the ceiling and hit the floor with considerable impact. Some timbers appeared to be rotten and she could see the neighbour’s toilet u-bend through the ceiling.
3. She immediately contacted the landlord by telephone and email and requested a new set of keys to the communal front door. To date, she had not received a new key and she had been unable to access and inspect her flat.
4. She had not received an update from the landlord since 18 November 2022. She requested an update on whether the neighbour had moved out of the flat above and what the anticipated next steps would be. She also requested a new front door and back door key by 15 December 2022 and said that if this was not received, she would consider taking legal action against the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident on 13 December 2022. It said:
1. The neighbour had signed for the new tenancy, however, had not provided vacant possession of the flat. Therefore, it was chasing partner agencies to arrange for items to be removed that week. It would continue to keep the resident updated.
2. It was unclear as to who had changed the front and back door locks. It would make enquiries with the surveyor to confirm and ask that she was provided with copies.
On 16 December 2022, the landlord sent the resident a peer review (stage 2) addendum letter. It said:
1. In its peer review response and subsequent updates, it had explained that to carry out the necessary repair work it required access to the neighbour’s property. The neighbour’s circumstances had presented significant challenges and had demanded a wider collaborative effort with statutory stakeholders. It first notified the resident in April 2022 that it was seeking to accommodate the neighbour’s transfer to another property and it had been attempting to facilitate this since that time.
2. It had taken longer to facilitate than it would have wanted due to its legal obligation to accommodate the neighbour’s personal circumstances. It recognised that this had been an untenable situation and had therefore proposed an additional compensation offer. It was at an advanced stage of rehousing the neighbour and it was continuing to work with a statutory agency and had been advised that it would receive vacant possession of the neighbour’s property that month. Subject to obtaining vacant possession, its repairs team would be able to inspect and coordinate the necessary repairs.
3. It had reviewed its communication with the resident and it was clear that it had not updated the resident sufficiently between June 2022 and September 2022 and it apologised. It was subject to a major cyber security incident in June 2022 which prevented its staff from accessing key systems, however it had included the communication service failure in its consideration of an additional compensation offer. It was pleased to note that it had continued to provide regular updates since the systems were restored.
4. It said that it had provided updates to the resident on 22 April 2022, 26 April 2022, 9 May 2022, 26 October 2022, 4 November 2022, 18 November 2022, and 12 December 2022.
5. It had made a total compensation offer of £4,209.19 following the stage 2 peer review, which consisted of:
  1. A discretionary payment of £2,726.82 in recognition of failure to address the ongoing leak over a considerable period and the inconvenience caused.
  2. Reimbursement of Service Charge costs of £665.19.
  3. Reimbursement of Council Tax costs of £817.18.
6. In view of the additional 8 months that had elapsed since the peer review, it had awarded an additional compensation payment offer of £1,463.41, which was made up of:
  1. A discretionary payment of £1,363.41 in recognition of the failure to address the ongoing leak over a further 8 month period (since the peer review) and the inconvenience caused.
  2. A payment of £100 for failure to update the resident during the cyber security incident.
The resident responded on 23 December 2022. She said:
1. She had been unable to live in her flat for almost 2 years due to the landlord’s failure to deal with the water leak from the neighbour’s flat. Her property was declared unsafe to live in on 3 February 2021. The bathroom ceiling and part of the living room ceiling had collapsed a few months ago, there were rotten timbers, damage to the floors and a great deal of mould had spread around the flat, all due to the unresolved water leak. The flat was burgled in January 2022, presumably as the burglars knew the property was unoccupied.
2. She would prefer to wait to discuss compensation until such time as the neighbour had moved out and all remedial and restoration works to the flat had been completed, funded in their entirety by the landlord and/or its insurers.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord obtained vacant possession of the neighbour’s flat. The resident visited her property on 19 June 2023 to inspect the work completed by the landlord. She confirmed that the renovations to the block had been completed to a high standard and her flat had been restored to a very good condition.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of a leak into the resident’s property from the flat above

It is recognised by this Service that this is a complex case and it is evident and understandable that the amount of time taken to resolve the leak was both distressing and frustrating for the resident.
It is not disputed that there has been a significant and ongoing leak into the resident’s property from the flat above that has caused considerable damage. It is also not disputed that the responsibility for resolving the leak sat with the landlord.
The landlord has provided this Service with evidence to show that it was aware of the issues within the neighbour’s property and the leak from the bathroom in 2018. The evidence shows that the leak had also affected another property and caused extensive damage due to water ingress from the neighbour’s flat.
When the resident first reported a leak in January 2021, the landlord did attempt to gain access to the neighbour’s flat to resolve it but was unable to do so due to a lack of access. Given that the landlord was already aware of the difficulties with the neighbour and the ongoing issues involving another property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalate the matter at this point. However, the evidence shows that the only action that the landlord took was to raise a tenancy breach case.
The landlord did make further attempts to gain access to the neighbour’s property following receipt of the resident’s damp and timber report in early February 2021. However, the landlord did not attempt to inspect the resident’s property until 19 March 2021, and this was only in relation to requested improvement works, rather than the leak. The landlord has not provided any evidence in relation to the outcome of this inspection, other than it agreeing to the improvement works proposed by the resident once the leak was resolved.
Given that the damp and timber report made reference to the resident’s property being unfit for habitation and a hazard, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property as soon as it was aware of these findings. It is unclear from the information provided exactly when the landlord completed a full inspection of the resident’s property in relation to the leak, if at all, prior to the loss adjuster’s inspection in September 2021. This was unreasonable as the landlord did not act with appropriate urgency in response to the health and safety concerns raised in the resident’s report.
The landlord did provide the resident with its insurer’s details on 8 July 2021, and although this was appropriate in the circumstances, there was an unreasonable delay from the date the leak was first reported in January 2021 until the landlord provided the details six months later. From February 2021, the resident had incurred additional costs as she had been paying for both her mortgage and the rent on a shared property, in addition to the related costs for both properties.
In July 2021, after considering its options, the landlord noted that the tenancy breach case did not contain all the relevant information and that it had not considered the issues with the resident’s property and the neighbour’s tenancy breach case as one issue. This failure is likely to have contributed to the overall delays in resolving the matter.
It was not until September 2021, which was eight months after the resident first reported the leak, that the landlord said it would seek assistance from statutory agencies. It is unclear from the information provided why, given the neighbour’s history and the ongoing issues with the leak into another property, the landlord did not make the necessary referrals sooner. It should have been clear from the landlord’s records that this action was required much earlier. Because of this, the landlord missed opportunities to attempt to resolve the matter sooner, or at the very least, make an earlier referral to external agencies, which may have reduced the overall time that the resident had to spend in temporary accommodation.
In September 2021, the loss adjuster noted that there was damage to the ceiling joists that supported the floor to the neighbour’s property. The landlord did request an urgent safety assessment, however there is no evidence to show that this was completed or what the outcome of the assessment was. The landlord’s response to the safety concerns raised in this case was poor. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to instruct a specialist surveyor to undertake a detailed assessment of the damage and the likely risk to the neighbour, the resident’s property, and the adjoining properties following the loss adjuster’s inspection.
From September 2021 onwards, the landlord did seek advice from its legal team and liaised with other statutory and partner agencies in an attempt to resolve the matter. It took advice and worked with the statutory agencies and considered the most appropriate options available based on the neighbour’s circumstances. It also installed acrow props in the resident’s bathroom to provide additional support to the ceiling joists and identified a suitable alternative property for the neighbour. These actions were appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord was seeking to progress a resolution.
However, the landlord still failed to act with the urgency warranted in this situation and progress was slow. The evidence shows that actions were repeated, even though there appeared to be no prospect of success. There is no evidence of a robust plan of action and nobody appeared to have clear ownership of the case. The landlord should have sought legal advice at a much earlier stage in the process and should have considered taking legal action to at least gain entry and repair the leak.
The landlord did apologise and accept that it had not taken action as quickly as it should have in its stage one response, and it offered the resident £4,187 in compensation. The offer was increased to £4,209.19 in its stage two response, which was reasonable given that the landlord had taken advice from its insurance team and the resident had not been provided with insurance details until July 2021, when she had already been in alternative accommodation since February 2021.
From May 2022 until October 2022, the records show that the landlord did not communicate adequately with the resident. This was unreasonable and a clear failing on the part of the landlord. It is noted that the landlord was subject to a cyber-attack in June 2022, which it said limited access to its systems.
However, this issue had been ongoing for a significant period of time prior to June 2022, and the landlord was well aware of the need to keep in contact with the resident. It would have been reasonable, given the extent of the issue and the fact that the resident was unable to live in her own home, for the landlord to have appointed a single point of contact (responsible for providing regular and meaningful updates to her) much earlier. It was time consuming and frustrating for the resident to keep chasing the landlord for updates.
From the information provided, it appears that there was a break in at the block on or around 27 October 2022, which led to the landlord changing the communal locks. Although the landlord’s operative fitted a key safe and provided the landlord with a code for the resident, so that she could retrieve her keys and enter the block, the landlord failed to inform the resident of the lock change.
This resulted in the resident being unaware that the locks had been changed when she attempted to access her property on 31 October 2022. Although she contacted the landlord on the same day, she had still not been informed that her keys were in the key safe by 6 December 2022, and she had not had access to her flat during that time. This was unreasonable and would have caused additional distress and frustration for the resident. The landlord was still unaware as to who had changed the locks or why when it responded to the resident on 13 December 2022 – this evidences a failure in its internal communications.
The resident made contact with the landlord more than once raising concerns about the conditions in her property and that it was dangerous and deteriorating but there is no evidence of the landlord taking any significant action. This led to the ceilings collapsing and more extensive damage which the resident discovered. It would inevitably have been distressing for her to find her home in this state.
The landlord reviewed its stage two response on 16 December 2022, and considered further events up to that date, as the issue was still ongoing and had been for a prolonged period of time. It accepted that its communication with the resident had been insufficient between June 2022 and September 2022, it apologised for this and offered an additional £100 compensation for the communication failures. It also recognised that this had been an untenable situation for the resident and it proposed an additional offer of compensation of £1,363.41 for inconvenience. This increased the total compensation offer to £5,672.60.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case, the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident and by increasing the compensation offer in view of the additional communication failures and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s revised offer of £5,672.60 compensation and its apology represented reasonable redress for the identified failings, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaints and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. This level of compensation was significant and in line with Ombudsman guidance for cases where there has been a long-term failure that has had a major impact on a resident.
In addition to this, once the landlord obtained vacant possession, it did renovate the block and restored the resident’s property to a very good standard within a reasonable period of time, given the extent of the works that were required.
In summary, although there were significant failings, the landlord attempted to put things right during its final review on 16 December 2022. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord is therefore to pay the £5,672.60 compensation offered, if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

There were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord on 6 June 2021. However, the landlord did not provide a stage one response until 4 March 2022, which was an overall delay of nine months. This was significantly outside of the timeframe stated in the landlord’s complaints policy of 10 working days, and therefore represented an inappropriate delay.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord kept the resident updated in relation to the progression of the complaint throughout the period of delay or provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of response. The resident found it necessary to contact this Service on 18 January 2022, as she had not received a response to her complaint from the landlord despite making several requests. It was unreasonable that it required this Service to prompt the landlord in order to ensure that the resident received a response.
The landlord attributed the delay to the complexity of the case and the fact that the matter was ongoing. However, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says “Landlords must issue the complaint response to the resident once the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are complete. This affords the resident the opportunity to challenge the conclusions on their complaint, including whether the proposed actions are appropriate, immediately. Where the outstanding issues involves undertaking work which may take weeks or months to complete, the landlord should inform the resident of the timescale for the works to be completed and must track and action the outstanding work expeditiously and provide regular updates to the resident”.
The landlord failed to adequately acknowledge within its stage one response that the resident had been waiting for an unacceptable period of time. Although it did acknowledge that the delay had hindered the resident’s option to escalate her complaint, it did not offer any specific redress in relation to the complaint handling failures. Instead, the landlord offered an overall discretionary payment of £1500 which included the failure to address the ongoing leak, inconvenience caused, delay to complete the repair and its response to the complaint. This was unreasonable and minimised the impact of the significant complaint handling delay.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 13 March 2022. She did not receive a final response until 11 May 2022. This was 40 working days from the date of the escalation request and was significantly outside of the timeframe stated in the landlord’s complaints policy of 20 working days. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the stage one complaint as, although the delay in its stage two response was less than at stage one, there was still an unreasonable and unexplained delay.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident and requested an extension and it did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. It did, however, offer compensation of £50 in relation to its stage two complaint handling failure. Although it was appropriate for it to offer financial redress for the delay, this was insufficient given the extent of its failings.
The landlord did review its stage two response on 16 December 2022 as it recognised that the substantive matter was still ongoing and wanted to reflect the additional delay and additional communication failures within its offer of compensation. Although this action was outside of its complaints policy, it was reasonable in the circumstances of the case as it benefited the resident in offering a further update and an increase in the compensation award. However, the review of the stage two response did not adequately address the overall complaint handling failures at stage one and stage two and failed to provide reasonable redress. The Ombudsman has therefore increased the compensation for complaint handling failures to £350 in line with the remedies guidance.
In summary, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which would have caused the resident additional time and trouble, frustration and distress. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy which resulted in significant delays and prevented the resident from being able to escalate her complaint to stage two for a period of nine months. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not provide reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into her property from the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

It is not disputed that there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the leak from above. It was not pro-active, missed opportunities to resolve the matter sooner and its communications were inconsistent despite the seriousness of the impact on the resident’s property. This would have led to a finding of maladministration but the landlord’s complaint response following its final review recognised its failings and apologised to the resident for its handling of the leak. The overall offer of £5,672.60 compensation was fair, reasonable and in line with Housing Ombudsman guidance.
The landlord’s complaint handling was poor, and it departed from the timescales set out in its complaints policy. There were significant delays in the landlord issuing its stage one complaint response, to the extent it had to be prompted by this Service. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the outcomes at stage one, as there were further delays in its stage two response. The landlord failed to adequately recognise its complaint handling failures and did not offer reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £350 (this is inclusive of the offer of £50 previously made) in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures highlighted in this report.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should:
1. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £5672.60 compensation it offered on 16 December 2022.
2. Review the events in this case and assess how it would access a flat causing a leak in similar circumstances in future. The landlord should consider:
  1. how it will improve its communications/management with tenants in similar circumstances;
  2. whether its current related policies and procedures are adequate to ensure that its staff are confident to deal with such issues;
  3. how it will ensure that it escalates such cases to external and partner agencies in a timely manner.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.