Incommunities Limited (202423275)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat in a 2-storey block. She complained that the landlord had not repaired damage to her property caused by a leak from above. The resident’s son corresponded with the landlord throughout the process. However, for clarity, we have recorded that all contacts came from the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak and associated repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated repairs.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Leak

5. There was an unacceptable delay in the landlord repairing the source of the leak and it did not keep the resident informed throughout the process.

Complaint

6. The landlord did not set out its understanding of the complaint prior to providing a response. Therefore, it failed to provide a full response to the complaint at stage 1 of the process.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The lease for the property says that it is the leaseholder’s responsibility to keep the property in good repair (including decorative repair). It says that it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair the structure and exterior of the building.
8. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It says that it will complete unplanned major works within 40 working days.
9. There is evidence that the resident reported damage to her property caused by a leak in February 2024. The landlord inspected the issue the following day and in an internal email the inspector asked for an urgent job to be logged to repair the flat roof. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord raised a repair job at that time. This error meant that the resident was living with the issue longer than necessary it also cost her time and trouble contacting the landlord again.
10. In the same email the inspector also asked for a follow-up job to be logged to paint the resident’s property due to the damage caused by the leak. While we have seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident directly that it would decorate the property this email implies that there was some confusion about the landlord’s responsibilities and that this may have been conveyed to the resident.
11. There is evidence that the resident took further time and trouble contacting the landlord again before a contractor completed a repair to the roof on 7 August 2024. However, this repair was not successful and the issue continued until approximately March 2025 when a contractor completed further work. This was over a year after the resident initially reported the issue. The landlord therefore did not adhere to the timescales within its repair policy. This caused considerable distress to the resident who was living with the damage. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident during this time to keep her informed of progress. This caused inconvenience to her and her family who were contacting it regularly on her behalf.
12. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord sign posted the resident to its insurance company to make a claim for the damage to her property. This was because it had found that there had been a delay in it responding to her reports about the leak. This was an appropriate offer for it to make in the circumstances. The resident did not act on this at the time because the source of the leak had not yet been resolved. It would have been good practice for the landlord to offer this again after the roof repair was finally resolved but we have seen no evidence that it did so.
13. In summary, there was an unacceptable delay in repairing the source of the leak and likely miscommunication about the landlord’s responsibilities. The landlord correctly signposted the resident to its insurance company when it found that there had been an unnecessary delay in resolving the leak. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident at stage 2 of the complaints process. However, we do not consider this to be proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation and to ensure that she is aware of how to make a claim to its insurance company for the damage caused.

14. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that when a landlord logs a complaint at Stage 1 or escalates it to Stage 2, they must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, they must ask the resident for clarification.
15. In this case, at stage 1 of the complaints process, the landlord did not clarify the complaint definition or make it clear what it was responding to. This meant that it did not answer the resident’s complaint about internal repairs and redecoration. This this failure to answer the complaint fully cost the resident time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint.
16. The Code also says that complaint handlers should complete a full investigation and consider all relevant information and evidence carefully, providing a full response. However, in this case, despite the landlord extending the timescale for responding to the stage 1 complaint, the response was very brief and did not give any details regarding the investigation it had completed. This meant that the resident did not have a full answer to her complaint and the landlord did not use the complaints process to resolve the issue.
17. Due to these errors and failure to follow the Code there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and we have ordered it to pay the resident £100 to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.

Learning

18. The landlord should ensure that complaint handlers clarify the complaint definition before responding to the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. No issues identified.

Communication

20. The landlord failed to communicate well with the resident throughout the repairs process.