We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

East End Homes Limited (202435034)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435034

East End Homes Limited

18 September 2025


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:  
    1. Reports of leaks and water ingress from a neighbouring property.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident reported a series of leaks throughout 2022, from the property above. The property above is a leasehold property which is used as a house of multiple occupancy. (HMO)
  3. On 29 June 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to make a formal complaint. This was due to a further leak. She reported this was due to a resident in the property above leaving a kitchen tap running. She raised that the leaks were often due to the behaviour of the above residents. She also raised that the landlord had previously spoken to the licencing department to have the HMO licence revoked from the neighbouring property and asked for an update on this.
  4. On 15 December 2023, the resident sent the landlord two emails as a further leak had occurred. She reiterated that this was due to the above property. She listed 9 leaks in total since January 2022. On 19 December 2023, the resident reported that the latest leak was getting worse and requested that someone come out to resolve this.
  5. On 20 December 2023, the resident confirmed that the leak had stopped. This was due to the managing agent of the above property sending a plumber.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 January 2024. It said that the property above was owned by a leaseholder and that any damage was their responsibility. However, it also said that it had been liaising with the managing agent of the neighbouring property, and the leaseholder whenever a leak occurred. It said that it would send a technical officer on 15 January 2024 to check the most recent works done. It also said that in 2022 it had contacted the licensing department regarding the HMO licence. It followed this up on 8 January 2024 and the licencing department advised it would look into this.
  7. On 27 October 2024, the resident emailed to say another leak had occurred. She said that she felt there was no urgency from the landlord and that it was not taking action, until she reported further leaks. She said she had spoken with the managing agent for the neighbouring property who was rude. She said they said they would get someone out the following day to the neighbouring property. The resident raised concerns that the works done on the neighbouring flat was not of the correct standard. She said that she had recently had a baby, and the baby was having to live with damp walls due to leaks. The resident reiterated her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 in an email sent to the landlord on 29 October 2024.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 November 2024. It said that it did not uphold the complaint as they had received no further reports of leaks since the stage 1 response. It also said it was not responsible for the revocation of HMO licences and that she would need to contact the council regarding this. It also suggested that the resident consider a home swap.
  9. The resident has contacted the Ombudsman as she feels the landlord has not done enough to prevent the leaks from the neighbouring property. She also feels that the landlord has placed the responsibility to find a resolution on her.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks and water ingress from a neighbouring property

  1. The resident has confirmed dates of 6 leaks during 2022. She has advised the duration of these leaks was short each time but that they caused damage and inconvenience. All of the leaks were from the neighbouring property above. The evidence provided for the investigation is from 6 September 2022 onwards. During September 2022, there was evidence that the landlord responded to the resident to ensure any leak had stopped, emailed the leaseholder and his managing agent regarding these leaks, and reported the incidents to the licensing manager. The landlord demonstrated that it was being proactive in trying to resolve the leak with the neighbour.
  2. On 10 October 2022, the resident reported a further leak which had caused electrical damage and damage to the carpets. In the email to the landlord the resident said it was unclear what had caused this leak, although she understood it was from the above property. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to severe flood damage or burst pipes within 24 hours. For minor leaks it will attend within 28 calendar days. We have seen an email dated 10 October 2022 from the landlord to see if the resident was at home so it could visit with the technical officer. We have not seen a response from the resident, and it is unclear if this visit went ahead. However, the landlord has demonstrated that it was responding to the leak, within the timeframes given for emergencies in its repairs policy. The landlord also contacted the managing agent on 12 October 2022 to advise of the damage the leak had caused to the property and said it considered this damage was their responsibility. The landlord has shown that it was attempting to resolve the matter.
  3. The resident reported a further leak on 16 October 2022. The managing agent from the property emailed the landlord to say they had checked, and their property was dry. The landlord said it would send a technical engineer. The landlord confirmed that it had completed a visit to the neighbouring property on 19 October 2022. It had established that the leaseholder had completed some repairs, but that the leaseholder needed to complete further repairs. It had informed the leaseholder of this. The landlord took appropriate actions to attempt to prevent further leaks, by working with the leaseholder. The resident also confirmed that following this leak, there was no further leaks until June 2023, which indicates the landlord’s intervention was successful.
  4. On 29 June 2023, the resident advised the landlord there had been a further leak due to the property above leaving the tap on. We would expect a landlord to contact a resident when they report a leak, however there is no evidence the landlord responded to this email. We understand from the resident that the leak was contained. However, we would have expected the landlord to use this opportunity to continue conversations with the leaseholder to prevent future leaks, and to report any potential licence breaches to the responsible party for the HMO licence. Further, in not responding to the residents email the landlord has not demonstrated that it was treating the residents concerns with any urgency.
  5. The resident reported a further leak on 15 December 2023. The resident again expressed their dissatisfaction that the behaviour of the residents of the HMO above was causing regular leaks. She also advised she was expecting a child and was concerned about the health and safety aspect regarding these leaks. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 December 2023 to say the leak had continued to get worse. When the resident reported the leak, we would have expected the landlord to assess this to consider whether it was an emergency. We have not seen evidence that it did this. We also consider that once the landlord was aware that the resident had raised health and safety concerns, it should have assessed if there was any further action it needed to take. We have not seen evidence it did this.
  6. The resident confirmed the leak was resolved on 20 December 2023 and the leaseholder also confirmed that their plumber had fixed the issue. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it was liaising with the leaseholder and that it had followed up regarding the HMO licence, with the appropriate authority. While the Ombudsman recognises that the leaks would have caused frustration to the resident, the landlord has demonstrated that it was taking action at this time to prevent future leaks.
  7. In the stage 2 response the landlord said it would visit the HMO on 15 January 2024 to check the quality of works. We have not seen a record of this visit.  As it relates to the neighbouring property, it may be that the records are stored on the neighbour’s account. However, we consider it would have been best practice to contact the resident to update them that it had completed the visit and to offer some assurance that it had done what it could to prevent future leaks. We have not seen that the landlord communicated with the resident regarding this.
  8. The resident reported another leak on 27 October 2023 and stated that the walls were wet, and she had a young baby in the property. We would expect the landlord to respond to the resident to offer support regarding the leak. We would also expect the landlord to consider any risk to the baby, given that damp is a risk under the Health and Safety Housing Rating system. We have not seen evidence that it did this.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not offer any resolution to the resident. It did not acknowledge the most recent leak, and it provided no update on what actions the landlord was taking to prevent future occurrences. It placed responsibility for reporting any HMO licence breaches on to the resident. The resident had repeatedly raised that the leaks caused damage to her property. We would expect a landlord to take action to ensure its property is not subject to ongoing damage. We also consider that the landlord has a duty to ensure a property is not subject to risk. Repeated leaks can be a cause of damp, and the landlord has a responsibility to take action to prevent this.
  10. The Ombudsman recognises that there are challenges for the landlord as a leaseholder manages the property. We also recognise that the landlord is not responsible for HMO licenses. However, we would expect the landlord to take action to protect its property and its resident. We have seen evidence that the landlord initially took reasonable actions to engage with the leaseholder, and to make reports to the relevant authorities when leaks occurred. However, during later incidents, the landlord has not demonstrated that it was proactively working to prevent leaks. It did not provide the resident with updates, and it did not demonstrate that it responded to the resident when health and safety concerns where raised. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ongoing leaks into the property.
  11. We consider it appropriate for a senior manager to review the history of leaks in this case. It should review the actions taken to date and consider whether further follow-up is needed. This may be liaising with the leaseholder, contacting the licencing authority, or speaking with the resident.
  12. We have also considered a compensation payment to be appropriate. This is in recognition that there has been an impact on the resident and that it is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience. We have considered our remedies guidance and awarded £200. This recognises that the landlord took some action to put things right, but that at stage 2 of the process the landlord did not acknowledge any failings and did not offer any future support for the ongoing issues.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord first issued a complaints response regarding this matter on 28 October 2022. The resident raised further dissatisfaction regarding the same matters on 29 June 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states that escalation requests must be made within 15 working days. The Ombudsman’s complaints code states that landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint unless it has valid reasons to do so. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider the escalation request, and if there were valid reasons that it could not be progressed, the landlord should have advised the resident and provided advice on the next steps. The Ombudsman has not seen any response to the resident regarding the escalation request.
  2. The resident next made a complaint on 15 December 2023, and the landlord responded on 10 January 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It responded within 15 working days, which was only slightly outside the timescales. However, the Ombudsman recognises there was a significant delay when considering previous complaints made.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It responded within this timeframe.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the stage 1 response was issued on 28 October 2024. The Ombudsman has not seen a stage 1 response from this date. The landlord referred to providing advice in the stage 1 response about the resident considering a mutual exchange. We note this is part of the response from 28 October 2022, and it is possible that the landlord had been referring to the initial stage 1 response.
  5. The stage 2 response said that there had been no further leaks since the stage 1 response. This was inaccurate as there had been a report of a leak in June 2024.
  6. There were delays in the complaints handling, which meant the complaint may not have been escalated as early as it could have been. There were also inaccuracies in the stage 2 response, which is likely to have caused confusion to the resident. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.
  7. Due to the inaccuracies in the stage 2 response, and the failure to consider an escalation at the earliest opportunity, the Ombudsman considers that compensation is appropriate. We have awarded £150 which is in line with our remedies guidance, given the time taken to complete the complaints process and the inconvenience to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
    1. Reports of leaks and water ingress from a neighbouring property
    2. The complaint

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay £350 compensation. This is broken down as:
    1. £250 due to the length of time the matter has been ongoing, and the landlord’s failure to provide ongoing support to the resident.
    2. £150 for complaints handling.
  2. Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to have a senior manager review the history of leaks in this case. It should review the actions taken to date and consider whether it needs to take any follow up action. This may be liaising with the leaseholder, contacting the licencing board, or speaking with the resident.