Harlow District Council (202403926)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403926

Harlow District Council

4 November 2024

 

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 handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a one-bedroom, third-floor flat, and the landlord is the freeholder. The resident sublets her property to a tenant.
  2. On 10 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report water ingress, which she believed was coming from the above flat.
  3. On 23 October 2023 the landlord attended, but it could not complete repairs, and further investigations were required.
  4. On 26 January 2024 the resident complained, dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the repair. She said she had reported leaks numerous times and was frustrated by the lack of follow-up. Following an inspection on 12 January 2024, she had not heard from the landlord, and water was still leaking through the kitchen ceiling, which she had repaired the previous year. She asked that the landlord promptly address the outstanding work to prevent further damage.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 5 February 2024 and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It confirmed that following a CCTV survey on 12 January 2024, it had found several defects in the rainwater pipe and detailed the repairs required. The resident was advised to contact the leaseholder insurance department regarding the internal repairs after the repair was completed. It apologised for the lack of communication and delays in completing the work.
  6. On 6 March 2024 the resident escalated her complaint because the landlord had not made any progress with the repairs. The leak had damaged her kitchen ceiling, which she had recently redecorated. Additionally, mould was growing in the bathroom. The landlord replied to the complaint on 27 March 2024, stating that it could not remove the roof outlet and replace the pipelining because the roof was made of concrete and the outlet was a cast iron installation. The landlord planned to access the top floor of the building on 6 April 2024 to complete the work. It apologised for the delay, citing the need for access to the top–floor property and explained that the repair was more complex than usual.
  7. The resident continued to report the leak after completing the landlord’s complaint process. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response, she asked us to investigate her complaint. To resolve the issue, the resident has requested that the landlord permanently fix the leak and repair the damage to the internal decorations.
  8. In correspondence with our Service on 21 October 2024, the landlord confirmed that temporary repairs to the pipe were completed on 25 September 2024, but at that time, the pipe had not been lined.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has indicated that she has reported leaks that have been ongoing for at least 2 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, usually within 12 months of the matter arising, so the landlord can consider the issues while the evidence is available to reach an informed decision on the events that have occurred. Therefore, our assessment focuses on events starting from August 2023 and considers matters following the completion of the landlord’s complaints process, as the leak remained unresolved.

Assessment

  1. The leaseholder handbook states that it will respond to repairs as emergency, urgent, or standard repairs. Urgent repairs that cause serious inconvenience, affect the security of the property, or create a hazard will be attended to and completed within 5 working days.
  2. In this case, the landlord was responsible for attending to, resolving, and repairing the leak because although the resident is a leaseholder, the terms of the lease mean the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the building, which includes a leak coming into the property from outside. The landlord is also responsible for dealing with leaks from another tenanted property. On 10 August 2023 the resident reported a leak that she believed originated from the flat above. The records confirm that the landlord tried to access the flat above, occupied by the landlord’s tenant, but was unsuccessful. It is unclear whether further attempts were made to access the property at this time which is unreasonable.  
  3. Between 21 August 2023, when the resident reported the leak again, and 26 January 2024, when the resident complained, the landlord has failed to provide any evidence of adequately addressing the leak or completing necessary interim repairs. While we know it attempted to carry out repairs in October 2023, the records provide limited detail to ascertain the extent of the problem or why it could not complete a temporary repair to prevent further damage to the resident’s property. It has been difficult to establish what, if any, repairs were carried out between August 2023 and January 2024.
  4. The landlord‘s records show that a CCTV survey of the pipe was conducted on 12 January 2024, where multiple defects were identified, and a recommendation was made to install a liner to seal and repair all the defects in the pipe. The landlord stated that accessing the pipe was delayed due to difficulties in gaining entry to the tenanted flat. In situations like this, the landlord is expected to demonstrate that it took the necessary steps to gain access or enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement to secure timely access, especially when aware that the leak was affecting multiple residents in the building. If the landlord had acted more proactively, the delays and damage to the resident’s property could have been minimised.
  5. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response on 5 February 2024, that it was waiting for a quote for the necessary repairs. The evidence indicates that the resident had to follow up with the landlord in March 2024 because she had not received any updates on the progress of the repairs. This investigation has revealed a pattern of poor communication from the landlord. As a result, the resident has spent unnecessary time and effort seeking updates, which likely caused distress and frustration. This is evident from her requests for updates made on 23 November, 4 December 2023, 2 January and 6 February 2024.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delays and apologise to the resident for these. The landlord explained that the nature of the repair made it more complicated than usual. While we understand that some cases may take longer to resolve due to their complexity or factors beyond the landlord’s control, the landlord is still expected to proactively keep residents informed about the progress of the repair until it is completed. Clear and effective communication from the landlord is not just important, it is essential for service delivery. It demonstrates to residents that their concerns are taken seriously. A lack of updates indicates that the landlord has failed to keep the resident adequately informed.
  7. In March 2024 the landlord attempted a repair. However, the operative could not remove the gully or complete the repair because the gully was made of cast iron. While records indicate that a temporary repair was carried out, they do not specify the details of that repair. At this stage, a recommendation was made to line the pipe, reaffirming the findings from the CCTV survey conducted in January 2024.
  8. The unclear repair records have made it difficult to determine when specific work was completed. For instance, one entry indicated that its property services team was scheduled to install the pipelining on 5 April 2024, supposedly completed on 23 May 2024. However, the job ticket number ending in 091 confirms that the lining was installed on 30 July 2024. Additionally, correspondence from the landlord dated 28 October 2024, stated that the pipe would be lined “as soon as possible.”
  9. The landlord’s poor record-keeping has likely hindered effective repair management, increasing frustration for the resident and making it difficult for us to ascertain the completion of repairs. Based on the latest communication from the landlord, we assume the pipelining still needs to be installed. This indicates that the repair to install the liner has been outstanding for 10 months following the recommendation made in January 2024.
  10. The landlord should have systems to maintain accurate records of repair appointments and inspections to ensure that repairs have been carried out correctly, in line with its obligations. It is also essential for landlords to maintain accurate records so that complaints can be properly investigated by the landlord and by the Ombudsman. The landlord failed to comply with its obligations to maintain effective record keeping, which affected its ability to respond to the repair effectively. Therefore, an order has been made on this below.
  11. The landlord has not shown that it effectively managed the repairs after completing its complaints process. As a result, the resident had to spend additional time in April, May, and July 2024, reporting that the leak was still unresolved. The lack of timely updates and a clear plan to permanently fix the issue is unacceptable. There is insufficient evidence to show how the landlord tracked the progress of the repairs or addressed the inconvenience faced by the resident, which should have been a key consideration.
  12. The landlord has confirmed that temporary repairs were completed on 25 September 2024, 13 months after the leak was first reported. While we acknowledge the complexities involved in identifying the cause of the leak, the duration for completing these temporary repairs was unnecessarily prolonged and does not align with the landlord’s published repair timeframe. Moving forward, it is crucial to address that the pipe still requires lining, and we expect prompt action to resolve this issue. 
  13. Overall, the landlord did not provide appropriate redress to consider the distress, inconvenience, and trouble caused to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord failed to fully recognise the impact of the delays in resolving the leak, which continued to cause damage to the resident’s internal decorations. Therefore, we have found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the leak, and orders have been made to put things right.
  14. In assessing a proportionate level of compensation, we have reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We have considered the time the resident spent chasing the repair, the delays in the repair being completed, and the overall distress and inconvenience this caused over a prolonged period. Therefore, we have awarded £400 to reflect the failings identified and £50 for the failings identified in its record keeping.
  15. The landlord provided the resident with information on how to claim via its insurance department to remedy the damage caused to the resident’s flat. This was appropriate. The resident advised us that she would pursue the claim once she confirmed that the leak had been resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to:

a.     Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.

b.     Pay the resident a total of £500 comprising:

  1. £400 to reflect the repair delays, poor communication, overall distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused.  
  2. Pay the resident £100 for the failings identified in the landlord’s record keeping.

c.      Contact the resident to confirm whether her tenant has experienced further leaks following the landlord’s repairs on 6 August 2024. If the tenant has experienced additional leaks, the landlord should develop an action plan to permanently fix the issues, including an expected completion date for the repairs and a date that the pipe lining will be installed. This plan should be shared with the resident and our Service.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 6 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Conduct a management review of the resident’s case to establish points of learning and steps it could take to improve its service regarding complex leaks and interim measures repairs going forward.

b.     Review its record-keeping practices against the landlord’s self-assessment of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

c.      A copy of these reviews should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.