Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202305132)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305132

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

30 October 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

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

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy of the property which began on 18 November 2002. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat. The resident said she suffers from health issues including lupus and asthma. She also said she is dyslexic. The landlord said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident said that she has reported leaks into her property since 2016. On 3 November 2022, the resident reported that she had water leaking through her kitchen ceiling.
On 6 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that she had tried to contact its out of hours team on 3 November 2022, without success. She said she did not know if her electrics were safe following the leak.
On 3 February 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it said:
1. it had inspected the property in December 2022 and raised the following repairs:
  1. bedroom 1 – mould wash around the windows and repaint
  2. living room – mould wash around the balcony and repaint
  3. bathroom – reseal around the bath
  4. kitchen – repaint the ceiling
2. it completed these repairs on 16 January 2023
3. it raised further repairs on 16 January 2023, as follows:
  1. replacement of the kitchen fan
  2. fit a temperature valve on the hallway radiator
4. it completed these repairs on 18 January 2023
5. it accepted there had been a technical issue with the out of hours telephone line
6. it apologised for this and said it had passed the information to its repairs manager to ensure it did not happen again
7. it said it would erect scaffolding to investigate the roof and identify the source of the leak
8. it would complete follow on work to the resident’s property when it had identified and repaired the source of the leak
9. the landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident
On 2 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said she remained dissatisfied because:
1. the landlord had delayed in responding to her complaint at stage 1
2. the landlord had not acknowledged the delay in inspecting the property following the leak in November 2022
3. the landlord had not considered the inconvenience caused to the resident by its out of hours telephone line not working
4. the leak in the kitchen remained outstanding
As a resolution the resident asked the landlord to:
1. fully investigate and resolve the leak
2. reconsider its position with regard to compensation
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 March 2023, in which it said:
1. it agreed that it had not complied with its complaint policy and offered the resident £100 compensation for this aspect of her complaint
2. it said that the technical issue with the out of hours telephone line was outside the landlord’s control
3. it accepted that the out of hours telephone line not working had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and offered the resident £100 compensation for this aspect of her complaint
4. it would carry out further investigative works at her property
5. it would investigate the resident’s kitchen window frame and the bubbling in the walls, which the resident had reported in her email dated 20 February 2023
6. it had made efforts to repair the leak to the resident’s home, but it also appreciated that the ongoing nature of the leak had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident
7. it accepted its communication had been extremely poor on occasion and non-existent on others and that it had not followed its complaint policy
8. it offered £200 compensation in total for its failures
The resident continued to report leaks to her property between July 2023 and March 2024. The landlord said it completed the repairs to stop the leak in March 2024. The landlord completed redecoration works in the resident’s property in May 2024.
The resident has informed this service that she reported signs of a leak in her kitchen to her landlord in August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said that historic leaks have been affecting her property since 2016 and that she has complained to the landlord previously about these issues.
In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman has limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint dated 6 November 2022, which completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure on 28 March 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. However, The Ombudsman has referenced events that pre and post-date this period for contextual reasons.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has raised concerns regarding the standard of workmanship in relation to decorations. These issues have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and, therefore, do not form part of this investigation. The resident can address these issues directly with the landlord if she wishes.
The resident said the issues in her property have had a significant impact on her physical and mental well-being, specifically her lupus. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a independent medical evidence. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance a landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. In addition, the landlord’s repair records were unclear. The records showed appointments as ‘completed’ but did not give a completion date. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to determine if the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of disrepair at several points throughout this report.
The landlord’s record-keeping has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.

The landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s kitchen

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on landlords to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of properties. Landlords are responsible for making repairs that are lasting and effective in all cases. Landlords should complete repairs in a timely manner to avoid impacting the resident’s enjoyment and use of their property.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete repairs within the following timescales:
1. emergency repairs – within 4 hours
2. non-emergency repairs – within an average of 28 calendar days
The policy also says:
1. where a contractor is unable to attend an appointment, they will contact the resident, at least two hours in advance of the prearranged appointment, to reschedule
2. the landlord will inform residents when they have reported a repair stating the job number and the expected completion date or appointment date
3. the landlord will ensure the resident is kept up to date of any changes to the details provided above
4. all repair requests requiring a pre-inspection should be visited within 5 working days by a building surveyor
On 18 October 2022, the resident reported damage to her kitchen ceiling to her landlord. The resident was concerned that this was a sign that the leak, which she had previously reported, was going to happen again. She sent photographs to the landlord. The landlord said that it would contact the resident within 5 working days to arrange an inspection. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident within 5 days. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s repair policy.
On 3 November 2022, the resident reported that there was water coming through her kitchen ceiling, which she said had got into the electrics. The landlord logged the repair which was appropriate. However, because this report related to a leak into the property, the landlord ought to have logged this as an emergency repair with a 4 hour response time. The landlord was required to assess if the property was safe for the resident to remain in and thereafter carry out any repairs identified. There is no evidence that the landlord did this in this case. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
On 6 November 2022, the resident tried to contact the landlord via its out of hours phone line about the leak. She did not know if it was safe to use the electrics in the property. The resident said she spent 40 minutes waiting to get through but was unsuccessful. She emailed the landlord and said she would like to make a formal complaint that the out of hours emergency number was not working and that the landlord was not attending to her repairs.
The landlord has apologised to the resident in its complaint responses for its out of hours telephone line not working on this occasion. It explained that it was a technical issue which was out of its control. It accepted that this would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience and offered £100 compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2022 to ask when someone would be out to inspect her property. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to good practice in respect of keeping the resident informed.
The landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s property on 21 November 2022. The landlord changed the appointment, at the resident’s request, to 29 November 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that the inspection took place in December 2022. This was approximately 2 months after the resident’s report on 18 October 2022. The landlord’s policy says that where an inspection is needed, it will aim to complete this within 5 working days. There is no evidence to show why this delay occurred. This was inappropriate and a failure by the landlord.
On 15 and 17 November 2022, the resident reported that water was again leaking in through her kitchen ceiling. Considering the health and safety implications with the water and electricity, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord ought to have considered bringing its inspection forward at this point. This would have ensured that the landlord could satisfy itself that the property was habitable and safe for the resident to remain in.
The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the inspection report from December 2022. However, both parties accept that the landlord identified the following repairs at that visit:
1. bedroom 1 – mould wash around the windows and repaint
2. living room – mould wash around the balcony and repaint
3. bathroom – reseal around the bath
4. kitchen – repaint the ceiling
The landlord completed these repairs on 16 January 2023, except for repainting the kitchen ceiling. The landlord said it could not complete this until it had found the cause of the leak and repaired it. The landlord identified further repairs at its visit on 16 January 2023, which it completed on 18 January 2023. These were non-emergency repairs which the landlord’s policy says it has 28 calendar days to complete. The landlord completed these repairs well within the timescale, which was appropriate.
The landlord said it would erect scaffolding to investigate the roof and conduct a dye test to establish if water from the roof was finding its way into the resident’s property. This was appropriate and is evidence that the landlord was trying to find the source of the leak. The landlord put up the scaffolding on 7 February 2023 and the resident said that the landlord told her it would conduct the dye test on 8 February 2023.
The resident said she stayed in all day on 8 February 2023 waiting for the contractor, but it did not turn up. She contacted the landlord in the afternoon and then received a call from the contractor who told her it had rearranged the appointment for 9 February 2023. The Ombudsman understands that, on occasions, the landlord may have to change appointments around at the last minute. However, the landlord’s repair policy states that where a contractor can not attend an appointment, it will contact the resident, at least 2 hours before the appointment to reschedule. The contractor did not do this in this case which was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
The resident said the landlord conducted a second dye test on 12 February 2023. She said that she contacted the landlord on 14 February 2023 and left a voicemail message to say that she had not seen any dye coming through into her kitchen, although she also said that it had not rained since.
On 20 February 2023, the resident reported that the top of her kitchen window frame was soft and unable to support a kitchen blind and that she had noticed bubbling in the kitchen ceiling and along the walls. She also referred to her voicemail message on 14 February 2023 and said that she had not received any update from the landlord.
This service has seen an email from the landlord to its contractor on 20 February 2023 which referred to a report in relation to the dye test. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of this report. It is also unclear from the records whether the landlord identified the source of the leak at this point and repaired it or not. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
In February 2023, the landlord instructed its contractor to fill all the gaps around the guttering and to ensure the mortar was watertight. The landlord also said its gas team would change the boiler flue. It is unclear from the records when the landlord completed these repairs. However, it was appropriate to complete these works to try to resolve the issues with leaks within the property.
The landlord has not provided a post-works inspection for the repairs it undertook to the roof. However, the evidence suggests that the repair was not effective because the resident reported a further leak coming into her kitchen on 28 July 2023, following heavy rainfall. The landlord arranged for an emergency inspection on the same date which was appropriate. The landlord’s contractor said that the leak was likely to be coming from the roof. The resident said the landlord had told her it had completed this repair. The contractor tried to speak to the neighbours living above the resident in order to establish if the leak was coming from their flats. The contractor managed to speak to 2 out of the 3 neighbours and did identify the cause of the leak. The contractor said it would ask the landlord to raise an urgent repair to investigate the leak.
On 31 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service to report a leak coming into her kitchen ceiling which she thought was coming from the external wall and gutters. There is no evidence to show what action the landlord took following this report. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
Between 1 August 2023 and 12 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on 6 separate occasions to report the leak in her kitchen. The resident said the water was appearing in different patches on the kitchen ceiling and had started to spread into her living room. She also reported that the water was dripping from the kitchen light and had tripped the electrics. This had also affected her boiler which meant that she did not have any hot water. The resident reported that the water was a brown colour and on one occasion she reported a milky substance leaking into her property. The resident said this was especially concerning to her as she did not know what the liquid was or whether it was dangerous to touch. The resident told the landlord that her kitchen had started to smell damp because of the leak. Throughout this period the resident told the landlord that she did not feel safe using her kitchen. She said that when she went out, she worried what she might find when she got home. She explained that the situation was impacting upon her health and wellbeing. She said that it was causing her distress and sleepless nights.
On 2 August 2023, the landlord raised works to repoint the brickwork above the resident’s kitchen window and to check all external waste pipe connections. This again was appropriate. However, there are no records to show when the landlord completed this work. This is another example of poor record keeping.
The landlord’s records show that it raised jobs to check and to make safe the resident’s electrics on 1 and 7 August 2023 which was appropriate. However, there is no record of when it attended or what repairs the landlord completed. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
On 10 August 2023, the landlord visited the resident. There is no report or note of what the landlord found at this visit or what it discussed with the resident. However, there is an email from the resident to the landlord confirming that the landlord had found the leak was coming from the flat above, although the landlord did not confirm the specific source of the leak.
On 15 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours team to report a leak in her kitchen. She said that the water was coming through the light fitting and through the electric socket behind her fridge. The landlord said that it would arrange for an electrician and plumber to attend her property. It also said it would try to speak to the neighbours above the resident to check if the leak was going into their properties. The landlord said it would call the resident back with an update.
When she did not receive a call back, the resident called the landlord again on 2 occasions. The landlord told the resident that it could not get through to her neighbour and it could not get hold of the landlord’s on-call manager for further advice. The resident took the decision to call the fire brigade because she was scared for her safety due to water coming out of the electric sockets and light fitting. The fire brigade arrived and spoke to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The resident said that the fire brigade told the landlord that the property was unsafe due to the water and electrics and that the landlord needed to arrange for an operative to attend as soon as possible. The resident said that the electrician arrived and checked the electrics. She said there was nothing else that the electrician could do. The resident said she had to leave her property at 11.15pm to stay elsewhere as she did not feel safe in her flat which she said was upsetting and inconvenient.
There is no evidence that the landlord appraised the condition of the property to ascertain whether it was fit for human habitation and whether it ought to have offered temporary alternative accommodation until it could locate the source of the leak and stop it. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The following day, the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to put her into temporary accommodation until the landlord identified the source of the leak and repaired it.
The landlord said it would visit the resident that morning to check if the electrics were safe to use and to resolve the issues around lack of hot water and heating. It also confirmed that it would be conducting works to the property above the resident, which it had identified the previous week. The landlord said it would erect scaffolding on 16 August 2023 so that it could complete the external repairs to the brickwork and soil pipe. The landlord said that it had asked the contractor to complete the works as soon as possible but it did not provide the resident with a specific date. The landlord said that it did not consider the resident needed emergency accommodation at that stage, but it would review this on a daily basis.
The landlord provided a further update to the resident on 16 August 2023. It said it had identified that the stack pipe between 2 of the properties above the resident needed urgent repair. The landlord said it had asked a neighbour not to use their washing facilities for a week whilst it completed the necessary works. It explained the time frame was dependent on receiving an asbestos report relating to the works needed. It said that it had taken samples and it hoped to receive the results soon. It would start the works as soon as it could after this. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord was making attempts to repair any sources which might the cause of the leak. It was also appropriate that the landlord kept the resident updated.
The landlord also told the resident that it had inspected the electrics in her property, and they were safe to use. The contractor had informed the resident that the circuit breaker in her property would trigger if there was a fault. The landlord said that the resident had access to heating, refrigeration and cooking appliances but she had chosen not to use them because she felt unsafe doing so.
The resident disagreed with this and said that the landlord’s contractor had told her, if there was a leak through the sockets, she needed to wait until this had dried out before using the appliances. She said this meant she had no cooking facilities, heating or hot water whilst she was waiting for the electrics to dry out. The resident said she felt the landlord had left her to fend for herself and had not given her any support to mitigate the impact on her. The landlord’s response to the resident, that she had access to electrics throughout, to be unfair. It is understandable that the resident would be concerned for her safety where water and electrics are concerned. It was unreasonable of the landlord to dismiss the resident’s concerns and is likely to have added to the resident’s distress.
On 10 October 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to explain how the intermittent leaks had affected her. In her correspondence, she said she had emailed the landlord on 5 September 2023 to request an update on the outstanding works and to report that more cracks had appeared on her kitchen ceiling and bubbling had appeared on her lounge wall. She said she had not received a response which had made her feel ignored. The records show that the landlord had seen the resident’s email but had not responded, which it said was due to an employee leaving the organisation. The Ombudsman would expect landlords to have suitable handover arrangements in place when an employee leaves to ensure that any outstanding actions are passed to someone else to take forward. The landlord did not do this in this case. This was not reasonable because it left the resident feeling ignored.
The landlord responded on 16 October 2023 and told the resident it would look into the issues raised and get back to her with an update. There is no evidence to show that the landlord updated the resident as promised. This was not appropriate.
On 2 November 2023, the resident reported that she had found wet patches on her kitchen ceiling again. She said that the kitchen wall and adjoining living room wall were damp. The landlord raised a job to inspect the electrics and investigate the leak, which was appropriate. However, there is no available information to say when this inspection took place or what the outcome was. This is a record keeping failure.
On 7 November 2023, the landlord updated the resident that it had inspected another property in the same block and it believed it had identified the source of the leak and raised the necessary repairs. The landlord said once it had completed these repairs it would raise the necessary works to redecorate the affected areas in the resident’s property.
On 21 November 2023, the resident sent photographs to the landlord of staining on her kitchen ceiling above the boiler. She said she was not sure how long it had been there or whether it was a new problem. The landlord confirmed that it had reviewed the photographs and it considered the staining to be from the same source it had identified at its last visit. The landlord confirmed that it had raised the necessary repairs and was waiting for a start date. It said it would update the resident once it had this.
On 22 November 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had completed a repair to a toilet in a neighbouring property. It also said that it would conduct additional works to the bathroom of the same property to ensure it had resolved all leak sources. It was appropriate of the landlord to provide this update to the resident.
On 11 December 2023, the resident reported that there was water dripping down onto the outside of her kitchen window. She said it was happening most days, even when it was not raining. She also said that there was a damp musty smell in her kitchen, which was worse on days when it was raining. The landlord’s contractor attended on 20 December 2023 and found that a link pipe on the external pipework, above the resident’s kitchen window, was leaking. It is unclear from the records when the landlord repaired this.
On 4 and 5 January 2024, the resident reported that the leak was back in the same spot on her kitchen ceiling and she had found water on the floor behind her cooker. The resident explained that the situation was very upsetting for her. There is no available evidence to show that the landlord logged this report or what action it took. This was not appropriate.
On 18 and 19 February 2024, the resident reported that there was water dripping on the inside of her kitchen window. The landlord responded and explained that the neighbour above the resident did not use a shower curtain which resulted in water escaping via the bathroom window. The landlord said it had provided the neighbour with a shower curtain, but the neighbour had chosen not to use this. It explained that this was not a repair issue and it had passed this to its housing team to look into. However, the landlord went on to explain that it had approved works to rearrange the layout of the bathroom in the above property to ensure that no water escaped through their window onto the resident’s window.
On 23 February 2024, the resident reported that she had arrived home to find water leaking through the same points in her kitchen ceiling. The resident explained how upset she was to find this happening again. She said there was water on the floor and damp patches had appeared on the ceiling again. She asked the landlord to provide her with alternative accommodation until it completed the works to the neighbour’s property and her property was safe to move back into. She asked the landlord to ensure that it started the works as soon as possible and that the landlord give her the dates when it would aim to complete the works.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on the same date. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the landlord’s inspection report, or notes made on this date and is therefore unable to comment on what the landlord discussed and agreed with the resident. This is another example of poor record keeping.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it considered the resident’s request to be temporarily moved at that stage. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have considered the use of additional support, such as temporary accommodation, given the length of time the leak had been occurring and considering the impact the resident said it was having on her health and wellbeing. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 29 February 2024 following its inspection on 23 February 2024. The landlord confirmed that it was replacing the shower in the neighbouring property with a bath, which it hoped would stop the leak once and for all. The resident asked the landlord to provide her with a date when it expected to complete these works and when it would start the redecoration works in her property. The landlord told the resident that it could not give her a date when works would start in her property until it had completed the works in the neighbour’s property. The landlord said it had asked its contractor for a start date and would update the resident once it received this.
It would appear from the records that the landlord completed the works in the neighbour’s property in March 2024. The landlord completed the redecoration works in the resident’s property at the beginning of May 2024. The resident has said that she noticed staining on her kitchen ceiling around the beginning of August 2024. She said she was concerned this was a sign the leak was starting again. She has reported this to the landlord.
The resident has said that whilst the leaks were occurring in her kitchen she did not feel safe. This was because of her concerns over using the electrics after a leak had occurred. She also said that the situation caused her distress and anxiety.
It cannot be disregarded that the resident remained in a property where water was ingression for years. While the Ombudsman is not able to determine that the landlord caused injury to the resident, we can say that the impact on the resident over this period was likely considerable.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that its communication with the resident had been poor. It acknowledged that the on-going nature of the leaks had caused inconvenience to the resident. It offered compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in its stage 1 complaint response and the inconvenience caused by its poor communication.
While the offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the compensation was not appropriate for the severe failings identified. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the complaint had a significant and detrimental impact on her ability to enjoy her home and she spent a considerable time chasing the landlord for responses and updates on repair works. In summary, the landlord was at fault because:
1. it failed to manage communications with the resident about the progress and timescales associated with some of the repairs. This resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates
2. it failed to log all reported repairs and failed to respond within the expected timescales
3. it failed to attend an emergency appointment following the report of a leak on 3 November 2022
4. it unreasonably delayed in inspecting the resident’s property following the report of a leak
5. it failed to demonstrate that it had completed all the repairs to a good standard
6. its on-call manager was not available to advise on the emergency incident on 15 August 2023
7. it failed to assess whether emergency hotel accommodation was necessary for the resident on 15 August 2023
8. it failed to reassess whether a temporary decant was necessary for the resident in February 2024
9. it consistently failed to assess whether the repairs had resolved the issue by completing post-work inspections
10. it failed to maintain sufficient records to detail the works and repairs it completed
The landlord offered £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This does not, in the Ombudsman’s view, recognise the impact to the resident. As set out, the matter is likely to have been highly stressful and the leak remained unresolved from at least November 2022 to at least February 2024. The resident’s enjoyment of their home was also likely affected. Based on the period this remained outstanding and the likely impact, and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a fairer level of compensation would be £2,500 compensation to recognise the significant distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of being made and will provide its response within 10 working days of being acknowledged. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge escalation of the complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of being acknowledged.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
1. Respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days
2. Respond to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days
On 6 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. The landlord responded on 7 November 2022 and informed the resident that it had logged her complaint and that its complaint team would be in touch. This was appropriate as it was consistent with its complaint policy and the Code.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 December 2023 as she had not received a response from the landlord. The landlord sent a formal acknowledgement on 16 December 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 February 2023. This was 62 days after the resident made her initial complaint. The landlord ought to have communicated any delay in providing its response to the resident. There is no evidence that it did so. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 March 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 March 2023. This was appropriate.
Overall, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling in that it delayed in its stage 1 response. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there is evidence of a service failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord’s offer of £100 is typical of the amount awarded by the Ombudsman for the failings identified. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and accordingly, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which resolves the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak into the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. provide the resident with a full apology for the errors identified in this report
2. pay the resident £2300 compensation in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£200) (£2500 in total). This award is to recognise the impact of the condition of the property had on the resident as well as the totality of the landlord’s failures. The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.
3. The landlord must appoint an independent surveyor to inspect the property. The landlord must ensure the property is inspected within 28 days of the date of this determination. The survey must:
  1. Comment on the condition of the property overall and whether it is fit for human habitation
  2. Comment on whether there are any category 1 or 2 hazards under the HHSRS
  3. Comment on all repair issues in the property
  4. Set out a scope of work with indicative timescales to complete the repairs
  5. Provide date and time stamped photographs
Within 10 working days of receiving the survey report, the landlord must share a copy with the Ombudsman and the resident. It must set out:
1. when it intends to commence the works
2. whether it will offer the resident temporary alternative accommodation
3. when it is likely to complete the works
The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure the work is started and completed within the timescales it sets out.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 56 days of the date of this determination.