East End Homes Limited (202334186)

Decision
Case ID	202334186
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	East End Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	19 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a flat on the 4th floor of a high-rise building. The resident contacted the landlord in 2022 and said there was an ongoing leak into his property since 2018. The resident was not happy the landlord had not addressed this sooner.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

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

The landlord responded reasonably when the leak was first reported in 2018. Although it unreasonably delayed repairing the issues between 2022 and 2023, it put this right by apologising and offering proportionate compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Although the landlord issued its stage 2 response outside of its policy timescales, it recognised its failing and offered compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £650 compensation offered at stage 2 of its complaints process, if it has not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 September 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He was unhappy it had not dealt with a leak he reported in 2018. He said rain had been entering into his property for 5 years and damaged his kitchen. He said several contractors had attended but failed to resolve the issue.
9 October 2023	The resident wrote to the landlord saying the pipework and concrete structure of the balconies had fallen into disrepair. He urged the landlord to address this.
9 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had investigated the leak on 1 February 2018, but the works order was closed with no further works suggested. It confirmed it had not been aware the leak had continued since 2018 until the resident contacted it on 8 November 2022. It said the recent CCTV survey revealed that the balcony drain had failed and that it would arrange the necessary repairs.
28 October 2023	The landlord said the resident requested to escalate his complaint on this date.
22 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It referred to a review meeting which took place on 12 December 2023. In summary, it said: it had attempted to book an appointment with the resident in February 2018, but the resident had declined it had no evidence of any communication from the resident regarding the leak between February 2018 and 8 November 2022 it was unable to quantify any damage resulting from the leak it had taken too long to address the issues since November 2022 as it should have completed the works within 6 months the review meeting was held outside of its policy timescales The landlord offered the resident £650 compensation made up of: £600 for time and trouble between November 2022 and November 2023 £50 for the complaint handling delay
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us seeking compensation from the landlord for water damage in his flat, including for a replacement kitchen and for lost rental income.

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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident said that he had lost 5 years’ worth of income as a result of not being able to let the property out. He holds the landlord responsible for this. We may not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the complaint about loss of rental income is better dealt with by a court or tribunal because of the complexities involved in determining causation for this type of loss. This means we have not considered the resident’s claim for lost rent. Our investigation focused on whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances and whether it followed its legal obligations.
Under the lease the landlord was responsible to keep in good and substantial repair and condition the main structure of the building, including drains, gutters, and external pipes.
The resident reported the leak on 29 January 2018. The landlord inspected the property on 2 February 2018. It carried out a water test and noted some water droplets had made their way through to the balcony of the resident’s flat. The records show the landlord attempted to arrange further investigations, but the resident told its operatives to “forget it” as there were no weekend appointments available.
There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on the repair. It could have provided clarity by confirming in writing to the resident that the repair request was closed and advising him to contact it if he wished to proceed. However, given the resident’s decision not to accept the appointments offered, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to have closed the repair request.
A claim was also submitted to the landlord’s insurers. It is likely this was triggered by the resident as the insurance company wrote to him directly on 18 May 2018 and confirmed there was no cover. We have not seen evidence that the landlord was notified of this claim or its outcome.
The resident said he verbally informed the landlord that the leak remained unresolved, but there is no record of these conversations. Our assessment is based on the evidence available which does not show any communication about the leak until 8 November 2022. Without notification, the landlord could not reasonably have known the leak had become worse or caused damage. This is especially so since the issue was inside the resident’s flat and the landlord did not have direct access to inspect.
Prior to reporting the leak to the landlord on 8 November 2022 the resident said he had to carry out works in the flat as a result of the leak. We have not seen evidence to show that the works the resident carried out inside the flat were necessary due to any failing by the landlord in responding to a report of a leak.
After the resident contacted the landlord in November 2022, it inspected promptly but did not carry out any works until 13 March 2023. Its records show it considered the repair as a routine one and it noted additional works could be required if the leaks continued. Under its repairs policy, routine repairs should be responded to and completed within 28 calendar days. The landlord acted nearly 14 weeks outside of these timescales.
The resident reported further leaks in early April 2023 which the landlord inspected promptly. However, it was not until 18 October 2023, after the resident chased again, that it arranged a CCTV survey. The landlord completed the necessary repairs in early November 2023. This was around 30 weeks after the resident reported that the leaks had persisted, which was inappropriate, particularly as the landlord had previously acknowledged that further works might be required.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord put things right by completing the necessary repairs. It apologised and offered £600 compensation which was at the upper end of our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. Although it did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint, we consider its offer of redress reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord updated its complaints policy during this complaint, in November 2023. Its complaint definition reflected our 2022 Complaints Handling Code (the Code) which was applicable at the time.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure with an optional review meeting at stage 2. Its timescales for responding at both stages of the process reflected the Code. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within its policy timescales. However, it issued its stage 2 response 20 working days late. Both its complaint responses were adequate and included its decision as well as reasons.
The landlord apologised for the delay at stage 2 and offered the resident £50 compensation. This amount was in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Learning

Landlords should ensure any repair requests are logged at the first opportunity and tracked through to completion. Had the landlord done so in this case, it could have potentially avoided some of the delays between November 2022 and November 2023.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

It is reasonable landlords may have limited records of historical events, such as the ones in this case. However, landlords should be aware of the importance of keeping comprehensive records of any conversations with residents, including face to face and telephone calls.

Communication

Landlords are advised to write to residents in circumstances where access for appointments is refused, to confirm if a request is to be closed and to outline the next steps.