Lambeth Council (202223064)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223064

Lambeth Council

31 October 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from a flat above.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a local authority landlord. The original lease for the property was granted on 11 December 2006 and the resident was assigned the lease through a notice of assignment in April 2010. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The property is a one bedroom flat located on the basement level in a converted house. There are two flats above the resident’s property and both are occupied by tenants of the landlord. The flat immediately above the resident’s flat is on the ground floor and the one above this is on the first floor.
The landlord’s Homeowners’ Guide states that if there if there is a leak from a tenanted property into a leaseholder’s home, the landlord will repair the source of the leak and give the leaseholder a job order number, which the leaseholder should then pass to the buildings insurer as proof the work has been completed. It goes on to state that the insurer will deal with the claim for any damage that was caused within the leaseholder’s home.
As both of the flats above the resident’s property were occupied by tenants of the landlord, under the tenancy agreement the landlord was responsible for carrying out repairs to the flats, including to basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that there are 5 repair classifications:
1. Priority 1 – those repairs that the landlord must undertake within 24 hrs and/or by emergency callout of the repair being reported.
2. Priority 2 – those repairs that the landlord must undertake within 2 working days after the repairs is reported.
3. Priority 3 – those repairs that the landlord must undertake within 5 working days of the repairs being reported.
4. Priority 4 – those repairs that the landlord must undertake within 30 working days of the repair being reported.
5. Priority 5 – those repairs that the landlord undertakes as part of an agreed program and/or improvement works within a specified timescale or 90 days unless otherwise stated.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repairs log shows that an emergency order was raised on 22 April 2020 for the landlord’s ‘out of hours’ team to repair a leak from the ground floor flat, which was affecting the resident’s property. The log shows that the job was cancelled, but does not indicate the reason for this. The repairs log shows that a further order was raised on 13 June 2020 to repair a leak from the same property, which again was affecting the resident’s property. The log shows that the job was completed.
The resident corresponded with the landlord’s buildings insurer during April-June 2020 regarding a claim he had submitted for damage to his property caused by a leak.
The repairs log shows that an emergency order was raised on 8 July 2020 for the landlord’s ‘out of hours’ team to repair a leak in the ground floor property as it was again affecting the resident’s property. The log indicates that the repairs were completed. The log also shows that emergency orders were raised on 9 and 10 July 2020 to trace and remedy a leak from the first floor flat into the flats below and these orders were shown as having been completed by the ‘out of hours’ team.
On 23 January 2021, the resident sent a video to the landlord showing water coming through his bathroom ceiling from a leak that occurred on 22 January 2021.
In June 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions regarding leaks from the ground floor flat. The resident attached videos showing water entering his property through the bathroom ceiling. The correspondence indicates that there were problems with the landlord gaining access to the ground floor property.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord raised an urgent order on 10 September 2021 to repair a leak from the first floor flat. The order indicates that the repair was completed, however, there are no notes to confirm the repairs that were carried out.
On 22 July 2022, the buildings insurer wrote to the landlord and advised that it had received a claim from the resident for damage caused by an escape of water that had occurred on 29 April 2020. The insurer said it understood from the resident that the leak was still ongoing and therefore the insurer advised the landlord that it was concerned about the length of time the landlord was taking to repair the leak.
An internal email dated 25 July 2022 from the landlord stated that it had located a job number (from April 2020) to address the leak, but confirmed that no follow-on works had been ordered.
The landlord’s records show that it logged a stage one complaint for the resident on 2 September 2022 regarding the leak (the Ombudsman has not seen the complaint, despite requesting a copy from the landlord).
On 12 September 2022, the resident wrote to a local councillor and stated that there had been a further leak, which he had reported to the landlord at 4.45pm that day. The resident explained that the water was leaking near his electrics in the kitchen and therefore he had been waiting for an electrician to attend. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord had raised an order on 12 September 2022 to make the electrics safe in the property.
The resident wrote to the local councillor again on 15 September 2022 to explain that he had received a text from the contractor at 8.17am on that day, without notice, advising him that the contractor was ‘en route’ to the property. The resident was unable to provide access as he was at work and stated to the councillor that he was not certain whether the job was for an electrician to check the electrics.
The resident wrote to his councillor again on 17 September 2022 and sent a copy to the landlord. The resident asked for his email to be treated as a final complaint prior to contacting his lawyers and/or the Ombudsman. The resident stated the following:
1. He had visited his neighbour on the first floor and could see no signs of water damage in the neighbour’s flat and therefore the resident’s view was that the leak was coming from the neighbour’s kitchen or bathroom at low level.
2. The neighbour had confirmed to the resident that he would cooperate with the landlord in order to address the leak that was affecting the resident’s property and the flat on the ground floor.
3. The resident had also visited the flat on the ground floor, which was directly above the resident’s property, and noted that the damage to the ground floor flat was very extensive (a large part of the ceiling had collapsed).
4. The resident had reported the damage in both flats to the landlord on 17 September 2022 and was assured that he would receive a text with a job number, but as of 6pm nothing had been received.
5. The resident asked the councillor and the landlord to advise him of when the leak would be repaired as it was a health and safety problem. He also asked whether the landlord would accept liability and pay for any damage that was not covered by the insurance. Finally he asked whether there would be an independent investigation into both the landlord and the contractor.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that an order was raised on 17 September 2022 for the landlord’s ‘out of hours’ team to repair an “uncontrollable leak” from the first floor flat. The log states that the contractor attended but did not carry out repairs because the tenant of the flat stated that there was no issue within his flat.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that an order was raised on 21 September 2022 to test the electrics in the resident’s property following a flooding from the first floor flat.
On 22 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised him of the following:
1. The resident should contact the buildings insurer and in the event the buildings insurer repudiated the resident’s claim, he should contact the council’s insurance team.
2. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged for a surveyor to contact the resident on the same day (22 September 2022). The surveyor would inspect the flats above the resident’s property.
3. The landlord had raised a works order for the electrics in the resident’s property to be checked and had raised an emergency order for the flat on the ground floor to be checked for leaks.
4. The landlord would decide what further action to take when it received the reports from the surveyor and the contractor.
5. The landlord had notes the resident’s report that the leak had caused his ceiling to collapse.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day (22 September 2022) and confirmed the following:
1. The surveyor had not yet been in contact with him.
2. An electrician had attended the property on 21 September 2022.
3. The resident had spoken to the buildings insurer on 22 September 2022 and was waiting for their response.
4. The resident could still see a steady leak emerging from various places on the kitchen ceiling.
The landlord’s surveyor sent an internal email following his visit to the property on 22 September 2022 and the flats above the resident, in which he stated:
1. There had been severe damage both to the resident’s property and the flat directly above him on the ground floor. The surveyor had taken photographs, which showed the conditions in the resident’s property and the other two flats.
2. The leak was coming from the flat on the first floor and the resident in this property was vulnerable. The resident in the ground floor flat was also thought to be vulnerable.
3. The resident had advised the surveyor that he first reported the leak on 4 May 2020, but no one from the landlord had previously attended regarding the leak.
4. The surveyor advised that vulnerability checks should be carried out in relation to the ground floor and first floor flats.
A further internal email from the landlord was sent on 23 September 2022 stating that tenancy checks should be carried out in relation to the ground floor and first floor flats as the residents were vulnerable. The email stated that significant damage had occurred to the resident’s property resulting in the ceiling collapsing.
The resident wrote to his local councillor and the buildings insurer on 24 September 2022. The resident stated that he had spoken to his neighbour in the first floor flat who had advised him that the landlord had not been in touch with him to resolve the leak. The resident added that the ceiling in his property was deteriorating and the matter should have been resolved immediately after the survey was done as the problem had been going on for two and a half years. The leak meant that the resident was having to clean his property every day and he advised that the leak appeared to have damaged the lighting and the refrigerator, which had stopped working on 22 September 2022. Finally, the resident said he could see the leak in a number of places in the bathroom and kitchen and as a result the flat was damp.
The landlord wrote to the landlord on 24 September 2022 and reported the damaged refrigerator. He also asked whether the landlord had repaired the leak as water was still coming through to his property.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property and the other flats on 26 September 2022 and on the same day raised orders to carry out urgent repairs to stop the leak and then to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom in the first floor flat. The repairs log indicates that the urgent repairs were carried out on the same day, but does not identify the works that were done.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 27 September 2022 to chase the landlord for a reply to his enquiry about when the leak would be repaired.
An internal email dated 29 September 2022 from the landlord indicated that the upgrade to the bathroom in the first floor flat should be treated as an emergency as there was a leak into the properties below.
On 4 October 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that the landlord was due to attend the property and the neighbours’ flats on 1 October 2021 to repair the leak but no one had attended. The resident stated that he was living without a working refrigerator and the property had signs of damp and mildew.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 October 2022 and requested an update on the works completed to date and the date by which any outstanding work would be completed. He said he had spoken to the neighbour in the first floor flat who had confirmed that repairs had not been carried out. The resident added that although the leak through the ceiling had abated, the living room walls were saturated, with water dripping down the walls.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 November 2022 to chase the landlord for a reply to his email dated 22 October 2022. He reported that fungus was growing on the exposed wooden beams.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 8 November 2022, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord was replying to the resident’s complaint, which it had received on 20 September 2022.
2. An order had been raised to repair the leak from the flat above the resident’s property and was completed on 13 September 2021.
3. An order had been raised to carry out a mould wash in the property and this was booked for 9 November 2022 (the landlord’s repairs log shows that the job had been raised against the ground floor flat rather than the resident’s property).
4. A further order had been raised by the landlord to repair an uncontrollable leak, but the job had been closed because the tenant of the flat on the first floor stated there was no issue in the flat.
5. The landlord upheld the complaint on the basis that there had been delays and a lack of communication in progressing the works.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2022 and requested clarification on whether the landlord was acknowledging responsibility for damage to any fixtures and fittings in his property that were not covered by the insurance policy.
On 1 and 8 December 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an urgent update regarding the repairs. He asked the landlord whether the source of the leak had been identified in the first floor flat and also whether the landlord had advised the buildings insurer. The resident reported that the damp issue in his property was getting worse and stated that his clothes and footwear had become mouldy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 December 2022 and stated that it had been almost 2 months since he wrote requesting an update. He asked the landlord whether the leak had been repaired and whether the landlord’s insurance would pay for damage to fixtures and fittings in the property.
After receiving a letter from this Service on 6 January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident on 9 January 2023 to confirm that it had logged a stage 2 complaint and the resident would receive a reply by 20 January 2023. The resident replied to the landlord on 11 January 2023 and advised that he could provide the landlord with a timeline, photos and other information to assist the landlord to deal with the complaint. The resident listed the outcomes he was seeking, which included the landlord to permanently repair the leak, advise the buildings insurer this had been done and to pay compensation for all damage not covered by the buildings insurance policy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2023 chasing a reply to his stage 2 complaint.
The resident wrote to this Service on 25 and 30 January 2023 stating that he had not yet received a response to his stage 2 complaint and he also wrote to the landlord on 27 January 2023 chasing a response.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had carried out an inspection of the first floor flat on 22 September 2022 and it was established that the leak was coming from the bathroom. As a result, a works order had been raised to repair the leak and the job was completed on 26 September 2022, which appeared to have addressed the issue.
2. For a permanent solution, the landlord raised an order for both the kitchen and bathroom in the first floor flat to be upgraded. The works were scheduled to be completed by the end of February 2023 and therefore the landlord would not be able to confirm that a permanent solution had been put in place until the upgrading works were done.
3. As per the landlord’s email of 22 September 2022, the resident should advise the buildings insurer about the damage to his property.
4. The resident would need to claim against his contents insurance for the damaged refrigerator, wasted food, damaged clothing, higher gas bills due to the damp and any other costs not covered by the buildings insurance. The resident also had the option of making a liability claim against the landlord.
The resident wrote to this Service on 5 February 2023 and stated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 reply for various reasons, including:
1. The response was not clear about whether it was upholding the complaint.
2. The resident said that the response did not take into account that he had been reporting the leaks since 2017 and only referred to events from September 2022.
3. The resident believed that the landlord had not fully investigated the source of the leaks.
4. The resident disputed that remedial works had been carried out to the first floor flat, having discussed the matter with the tenant of the flat who said that no work had been done.
5. Since the ceiling collapsed in the resident’s property, he had been waiting for 5 months for works to be carried out, which he stated was unacceptable.
6. The resident had been advised by the buildings insurer that remedial work to his property would not proceed until the insurer had received confirmation that the leak had been permanently addressed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 February 2023 to enquire about the works to the first floor flat. He had been advised by the tenant of the flat that no works had been scheduled with him.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 March 2023 to point out that no work had been carried out to the first floor flat and it had been 6 months since the collapse of his ceiling. He stated that the leak had not stopped.
On 25 August 2023, the resident wrote to his local councillors and the loss adjusters dealing with his claim and advised that the leak had still not been repaired and water was coming into his bathroom.
On 12 October 2023, the resident wrote to this Service and stated that he was still awaiting confirmation from the landlord that the leak had been permanently repaired. He confirmed that the buildings insurer had not yet dealt with his claim because they were waiting for the confirmation that permanent repairs had been completed.
On 15 October 2023, the resident sent this Service videos showing a further water leak into his property from the flat above.
On 23 October 2023, the resident provided the following additional information to this Service:
1. No mould wash was carried out to his property.
2. There had been a constant leak into the void between the resident’s kitchen and bathroom, which then spread to other areas, notably bringing down part of his ceiling.
3. The resident had first reported the leak in 2017.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident advised this Service that the leak from the flat on the first floor had been ongoing since 2017. While the Ombudsman is not doubting the resident’s statement, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from 2020 onwards.
The resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions and requested the landlord pay for any damage to fixtures, fittings and possessions not covered by the buildings insurance. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine negligence, liability or compensation claims in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these, and only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. Similarly, this Service does not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably responded, applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice.
The resident advised this Service in October 2023 that the leak had still not been permanently repaired as far as he knew and he submitted videos to the Ombudsman showing further leaks into his property. However, this Service has not received information from the landlord about these later events. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman. Therefore, although this report refers to these later events for context, this Service has not investigated these events because the Ombudsman has not considered it fair and reasonable to do so.

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

The Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s records that were provided to this Service. The landlord’s repair records lacked detail such as repair completion dates and details about the actual works completed. The records were therefore difficult to follow without cross referencing with other information, such as the resident’s own records. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to review its record keeping in relation to repairs to ensure information is clear and comprehensive.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that orders were raised by the landlord from April-July 2020 to address leaks that were affecting the resident’s property. One of these orders was raised on 22 April 2020 for the landlord’s ‘out of hours’ team to repair a leak in the ground floor property, however, it was cancelled and there is no information in the evidence seen by the Ombudsman to show why it was cancelled. Furthermore, in an internal email dated 25 February 2022, the landlord stated that an order had been raised (in April 2020) to deal with the leak but no follow-on work had been ordered. Therefore, based on the evidence seen by the Ombudsman, the landlord did not carry out repairs to stop the leak in April 2020 or raise an order to carry out follow-on works. This was inappropriate as the landlord had failed to deal with the leak, which the resident had reported was affecting his property. The resident has advised this Service that the leak was still ongoing at this stage.
The landlord raised a further order on 13 June 2020 to repair a leak from the ground floor flat which was affecting the resident’s property. The repairs log indicates that the works were completed. A further order was raised on 8 July 2020 to repair a leak from the bathroom in the ground floor flat and the log again shows that works were completed. The log suggests that the landlord responded within the appropriate timescales in relation to the orders raised in June and July 2020.
Information sent to this Service by the resident shows that there were further leaks into his property in January 2021 and June 2021. He wrote to the landlord and attached videos of the water ingress. The correspondence seen suggests that the leak was thought to be originating from the ground floor flat and the landlord was experiencing difficulties gaining access to the flat. From the information seen, it is unclear how the leak was resolved. However, the information does confirm that the resident was experiencing leaks from one or more of the flats above during 2021.
The repairs log shows that no further orders to repair the leaks were raised against any of the three flats within the house until 10 September 2021 when the landlord raised an order to repair a leak from the first floor flat. The log indicates that the leak was repaired, however, there are no notes to show the works that were carried out.
The buildings insurer wrote to the landlord on 22 July 2022 and stated that it was dealing with a claim for a leak, which according to the resident had been going on since April 2020. The landlord inspected the property two months later on 22 September 2022. The delay in the landlord inspecting the property was inappropriate as it had been advised by the insurer about an ongoing leak and did not respond with the urgency required. The landlord’s lack of urgency had prompted the resident to submit a formal complaint on 2 September 2022 and to write to his councillor on 12 September 2022, 15 September 2022 and 17 September 2022.
As stated, the resident had advised the buildings insurer that the leak had been ongoing since April 2020. While this Service is not doubting the information from the resident, the Ombudsman must be able to reference appropriate evidence to justify any conclusions reached. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to show that the leak had been continuous from April 2020 to July 2022. Also, the evidence suggests that the leaks in April-June 2020 were from a different source, i.e. the ground floor flat, compared to the subsequent leaks, which were from the first floor flat. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that there had been leaks into the resident’s property during 2020 and 2021 and the landlord had been made aware of these leaks.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the three flats on 22 September 2022 and noted that there had been “severe damage” to both the resident’s property and the ground floor flat as a result of the leak from the first floor flat. The resident had also advised the landlord that the leak had caused part of his ceiling to collapse. The surveyor’s findings and the partial collapse of the resident’s ceiling suggest that the leak had been ongoing for some time. Therefore, although this Service cannot be certain that the leak had been continuous since 2020, the Ombudsman has concluded that prior to September 2022 the landlord had not taken action within a reasonable timescale to address the leak and this had caused severe damage to the resident’s property and, based on the resident’s emails to the landlord, had caused him distress. The landlord had been made aware of the leaks by the resident during 2020, 2021 and 2022 and therefore it was unreasonable that the landlord had not taken more effective action to identify the source of the leak and resolve it.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that an order was raised on 17 September 2022 for the ‘out of hours’ team to attend to an “uncontrollable leak” from the first floor flat. However, the order was cancelled because the tenant of the first floor flat had explained that there was no issue in his property. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s contractor had not carried out more thorough investigations during the visit, including visiting the flats below to check for water ingress. The lack of appropriate action by the landlord added to the water damage within the resident’s property and the resident’s distress regarding the leak.
The landlord’s surveyor established during his visit on 22 September 2022 that the leak was from the first floor flat and that the tenant was vulnerable. The landlord therefore visited the tenant on 26 September 2022 and raised 2 repair orders. The first was to carry out urgent repairs to stop the leak and the second was to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom in the first floor flat. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise an order to address the immediate problem and to propose more extensive works to permanently address the problem. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the proposed timetable for upgrading the kitchen/bathroom was too long given that remedial works to the resident’s property could not take place until a permanent solution to the leak was in place. The timetable for upgrading the kitchen/bathroom was therefore inappropriate as it did not reflect the urgency of the situation.
The evidence indicates that there was a lack of communication with the resident regarding progress in dealing with the leak. This lack of communication prompted the resident to write to the landlord on various occasions to ask when the repairs would be carried out. For example, he wrote on 27 September 2022, 4 October 2022, 22 October 2022 and 6 November 2022. In his emails he advised that his refrigerator had stopped working (which he attributed to damage caused by the leak), he also stated that he had signs of damp in his property, the living room walls were saturated and there were signs of fungus on the exposed wooden beams. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident was unreasonable as the landlord was aware of the poor condition of the resident’s property as a result of the leak and the distress this was causing him.
The landlord’s stage one reply on 8 November 2022 stated that the landlord had booked a mould wash to be carried out on 9 November 2022. The resident disputed that the mould wash was carried out in his property and the landlord’s repairs log shows that the order was in fact raised against the ground floor flat rather than the resident’s property. Therefore, the landlord’s information that the mould wash was carried out in the resident’s property appears to have been incorrect.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 9 November 2022, 1 December 2022, 8 December 2022 and 28 December 2022 requesting clarification on whether the landlord had identified the source of the leak, whether it had carried out repairs and whether the landlord’s liability insurance would pay for the damage to his fixtures and fittings. He also reported that the damp issues in his property were getting worse and his clothing had become mouldy. Again, the landlord’s lack of proactive communication with the resident was unreasonable given the condition of the resident’s property as a result of the leak and the distress this was causing him. The landlord’s lack of communication prompted the resident to contact the Ombudsman in January 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 2 February 2023 and confirmed that the source of the leak had been from the bathroom in the first floor flat. The landlord stated that it had carried out repairs to stop the leak on 26 September 2022 and planned to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom by the end of February 2023. Consequently, the landlord could not confirm that a permanent solution was in place until it had completed the upgrade.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 February 2023 and 17 March 2023 to request an update regarding the works to the first floor flat and has advised this Service that he did not receive a response. The Ombudsman requested confirmation from the landlord in October 2023 that the upgrades to the kitchen and bathroom in the first floor flat had been completed. However, the landlord failed to provide this information. Given that the landlord had informed the resident that the bathroom and kitchen were to be upgraded by the end of February 2023, it was unreasonable that the landlord had failed to provide an update to the resident or the insurer after the target date for carrying out the upgrade had passed. The landlord was aware that the insurer was waiting for confirmation that a permanent solution to the leak had been put in place before it would undertake remedial work to the resident’s property. The resident was therefore anxious to receive confirmation that the upgrades to the first floor flat had been done. The landlord’s lack of communication meant the resident had to continue living with disrepair in his property and was unaware of when the remedial work would be carried out by the insurer.
The Ombudsman has found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and has ordered the landlord to pay compensation. The amount ordered is at the top end of the range shown in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for maladministration in order to reflect the significant impact on the resident as a result of the landlord’s following failings:
1. The landlord did not address the leak from the ground floor flat in April 2020 and repairs were not carried out to address the leak until June and July 2020.
2. The landlord took 2 months after receiving an email from the insurer about the leak to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property and the other flats in the house.
3. Leaks had occurred in 2020, 2021 and 2022 and the landlord had failed to take effective action to identify the source of the leak and carry out repairs to prevent further leaks.
4. The surveyor’s findings of severe damage in the resident’s property and the partial collapse of the kitchen ceiling in September 2022 confirm that the landlord had failed to address the root cause of the leak within a reasonable timescale.
5. The landlord cancelled an order to repair a leak on 17 September 2022 without carrying out a thorough inspection to trace and remedy the leak.
6. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident between October 2022 and January 2023 to advise him whether repairs had been carried out to stop the leak.
7. The proposed timescale for the landlord to upgrade the kitchen/bathroom in the first floor flat did not reflect the urgency of the situation (the order was raised on 26 September 2022 and the work was due for completion by the end of February 2023).
8. By March 2023, the landlord had not provided any update to the resident to confirm whether it had upgraded the kitchen and bathroom in the first floor flat. Also, the resident has informed this Service that he has still not received an update from the landlord regarding the work.
9. The lack of communication from the landlord meant that the resident had to continue living with disrepair in his property as the insurer would not carry out the remedial works.
The Ombudsman has taken into account the access difficulties faced by the landlord in carrying out repairs to the ground floor flat during 2020 and the complications resulting from the tenants of the ground and first floor flats both being vulnerable. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord did not resolve the problems within a reasonable timescale and did not adequately communicate with the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process:
1. Local resolution stage (stage one) – the landlord will provide a response within 20 working days;
2. The final review stage (stage two) – the complaints policy does not identify a target response time, however, the landlord’s website states that a reply will be sent within 25 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not consider compensation where a complaint is covered by its insurance policy or concerns the settlement of an insurance claim.
The landlord logged a stage one complaint from the resident on 2 September 2022. However, the landlord did not send its stage one reply until 8 November 2022, which was 46 working days after logging the complaint. The time taken by the landlord to reply was therefore inappropriate because it was outside its published timescale and meant that the resident had to chase the landlord via his local councillor on 12 September 2022, 15 September 2022 and 17 September 2022. Therefore, this resulted in more time and trouble for the resident. However, the landlord did write to the resident on 22 September 2022 to outline the action it was taking in relation to the leak.
Although the landlord apologised in its stage one reply for the delay in replying, it did not, in the Ombudsman’s view, provide an adequate response to the resident’s concerns. The resident had written on various occasions during September 2022 to report leaks into his property and yet the landlord did not provide reassurance to the resident that repairs had been carried out to address the leak. The reply quoted three job numbers: one of the jobs related to September 2021 and therefore was not relevant to the leaks in 2022, one was for a mould wash to the ground floor flat rather than to the resident’s property and the final job had been closed because the tenant of the first floor flat had said there was no issue. The quality of the landlord’s stage one reply was therefore inadequate and inappropriate as it did not offer the resident any reassurance that it was dealing with the ongoing problem. The reply also lacked empathy with the resident’s situation and did not acknowledge the distress he was facing in relation to the condition of his property. Finally, the landlord did not offer any financial redress to the resident to recognise the delay in responding.
After receiving a letter from the Ombudsman on 6 January 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had logged a stage 2 complaint and stated that he would receive a reply by 20 January 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 2 February 2023, which was 19 working days after logging the stage 2 complaint. Therefore, the landlord replied within the appropriate timescale for stage 2 complaints, albeit after the deadline of 20 January 2023 it had previously quoted to the resident. It was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it had not adhered to the deadline it had given to the resident as this had prompted him to chase the landlord on 20 and 27 January 2023 for a reply.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s stage 2 reply also lacked empathy, given that the landlord was aware there had been “severe damage” to the resident’s property, including the collapse of part of his ceiling. It did not acknowledge, for example, that there were still ongoing issues, even though the resident had reported on 22 October 2022 that his living room walls were saturated and on 6 November 2022 that there was fungus growing on the exposed wooden beams in the ceiling cavity. The landlord did not offer to re-inspect the property, carry out further repairs or take action to put things right (even though it had upheld the stage one complaint). It was inappropriate that the landlord had failed to use its complaints process to put things right. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code states that where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. In this case, although the landlord had proposed to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom in the first floor flat by the end of February 2023, it did not propose any further action to deal with the resident’s immediate situation.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord’s compensation policy states that it should not consider compensation where a complaint is covered by its insurance policy or concerns the settlement of an insurance claim. However, this Service would have expected the landlord to take action, such as checking whether any additional repairs could be carried out immediately to alleviate the problem. Also, whether the date of the kitchen/bathroom upgrade could be brought forward and whether any assistance could be given to the resident to help with the damp. Such actions would have gone some way towards putting things right and demonstrated fairness in the way the resident was being treated.
Overall, the landlord did not demonstrate the dispute resolution principles set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance about complaint handling for treating people fairly, putting things right and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman has therefore also found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from a flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to address the reported leak in April 2020 and did not act with sufficient urgency to inspect the resident’s property when advised about the leak by the buildings insurer in July 2022. The landlord had failed to address the leak within a reasonable timescale as indicated by the severe damage to the resident’s property, including the partial collapse of his kitchen ceiling. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about whether the repairs and the kitchen/bathroom upgrade had been carried out in the first floor flat. Finally, the landlord did not treat the proposed upgrade of the kitchen/bathroom with sufficient urgency given the condition of the resident’s property and the distress caused to him by the leak.
There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s stage one complaint and the response letter itself was of poor quality. Both the stage one and two replies lacked empathy as they did not acknowledge the issues that the resident had experienced in terms of damage to his property. The landlord did not offer to reinspect the property (and the flats above) during the complaints process to identify whether additional works could be carried out to address the leaks, nor did it take adequate steps to put things right. Finally, despite giving an assurance in the stage 2 reply about upgrading the kitchen and bathroom in the first floor flat by the end of February, by March 2023 the landlord had failed to advise the resident that the works had been completed.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,500 as follows:
  1. £1,000 for its handling of a leak from a flat above.
  2. £500 for its complaints handling.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
3. Carry out permanent repairs/upgrades in the flats above the resident’s property to address the leaks.
4. Once the works are completed, write to the resident and the buildings insurer to advise them of this.

Recommendation

The landlord should use the Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management to review its record keeping for repairs. The landlord should ensure that information held is clear, comprehensive and includes information such as completion dates and details of the actual works carried out.