London Borough of Barnet (202424785)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424785

London Borough of Barnet

8 October 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of flooding caused by water leaks at her property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a non-secure tenancy. She lives in a 4th floor, 2-bedroom flat with her 2 children. The landlord is a local authority. It has said it has no vulnerabilities for the resident’s household recorded on its systems. The resident has said that her son has vulnerabilities as he is autistic.
On 18 February 2024 the landlord raised a repair to make the electrics safe at the resident’s property, following a leak. Its records show that it raised the following repairs to her property:
1. 19 February 2024 – inspection of the water cylinder, after she had reported it was cracked and leaking.
2. 4 March 2024 – investigate the resident’s report that she had no hot water at her property.
3. 6 March 2024 – redecorate the hallway wall and ceiling, including the use of stain block.
4. 11 March 2024 – retile the bathroom, renew bath panels and apply sealant around the bath.
5. 10 July 2024 – make the electrics in her flat safe after a bad leak and provide her with temporary lights.
On 11 July 2024 the resident contacted the landlord about her housing options. She said the floods in her property were impacting on her and her son’s, mental health and wanted it to rehouse her to stop a further decline in their health.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 July 2024. She asked it to raise a complaint following the flood at her property on 10 July 2024. She said:
1. that her property had been flooded 6 times since February 2022 and the experience had been “traumatic” for her son, who was scared to use the bathroom alone due to this.
2. Its next appointment to reconnect her lights was not until 31 July 2024. By then it would have been 3 weeks that she would have been without lighting in her bathroom, hallway and son’s bedroom.
3. It had not found the cause of the leaks, despite her having previously complained to it about the issue.
4. The impact on her and her son’s mental health due to the issue was awful.
5. She wanted it to rehouse her to somewhere she and her son felt safe, as she could not go on living with the uncertainty that the leak could happen again.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 8 August 2024. It apologised to her and said:
1. Its records showed it had resolved the issues with her lights that had been caused by the leaks.
2. It had removed the lights in her bathroom, hallway and bedroom to ensure safety and provided her with temporary lights. It then reconnected the lights on 1 August 2024, after she had contacted it about this.
3. It had rescheduled a job to retile and repair her bathroom for 29 September 2024, after it could not gain access to her property for this repair on 28 May 2024.
4. She had agreed to contact it after it had completed the repairs to her property, so it could arrange a ‘healthy homes’ inspection.
5. If any further leaks happened at her property she should contact it directly.
6. As it did not raise follow on repair work to reconnect her lights, it offered her £30 compensation due to the inconvenience.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 August 2024 and asked it to escalate her complaint. She was unhappy that:
1. its response did not guarantee it would resolve the issue that had been causing the floods. Her son had suffered severely because of the floods, and she could not reassure him that they wouldn’t happen again.
2. She was insulted by the amount of compensation it offered her, which she felt did not match the emotional distress caused or cover the cost of replacing her damaged belongings.
3. Its response to repairing her property and communication with her had been poor.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 11 September 2024, after she had reported water leaking in her hallway, bathroom and son’s bedroom and the hallway light was flickering even though it was switched off. Its records show the repair was a roofing issue and it needed to rebook the job for a roofer to visit.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 25 September 2024. It upheld her complaint and was sorry that it did not meet her expectations. It acknowledged there was a lack of progress to resolving the leak and said:
1. Despite visiting her property several times to investigate, the leak stopped upon its arrival, which had made it difficult to locate. However, it found it raised a repair on 21 November 2023 that noted issues with the roof, but it had not raised follow-up work.
2. It was waiting on its contractor’s report following a roofing inspection on 20 September 2024.
3. It was not responsible for insuring her belongings and it would not offer her compensation for the damage caused by the leak.
4. As the complaint related to a repair issue it was unable to help with rehousing her. It provided her with details of its housing options service.
5. Due to the “loss and strain” to her it increased its offer of compensation to £250.
The resident approached this Service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she felt it had not taken the issue seriously or expressed any empathy in the way it had handled the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The evidence shows that the leaks that the resident reported to the landlord had gone on for some time. This led to her raising a complaint with it about the issues in November 2023, which completed its internal complaint process on 3 January 2024. It agreed to take steps to find the cause of the leak including a full property survey and assess the issue as part of a wider problem in the block of flats. Any reference to this complaint in the report will be made for context only, as we are investigating issues from January 2024 onwards.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding caused by water leaks at her property

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and responsive repairs within 15 working days. Where there has been a report of a roof leak, it will raise a roofing inspection to establish the cause of the leak and the repair works needed. Where practical it will take into consideration additional support needs where a tenant may be vulnerable.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time.’ This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord completed its repairs at the resident’s property within the published timeframe of its repairs policy, which was reasonable. However, its records show that from January to September 2024 its repairs were reactive to the resident’s reports following a leak. There is no record that it completed the steps that its complaint response on 3 January 2024 said it would do. Had it done so it is likely that the resident would not have needed to raise a further complaint. Regardless of this it was aware her roof was a possible cause of the leak, yet there is no record it raised a roofing inspection. This was a failure by the landlord to follow its repairs policy.
The landlord’s repair records show that it made safe the electrics in the resident’s property on 19 February, 10 July and 22 September 2024 following a leak. While it was reasonable it took prompt action to ensure her safety and provided her with temporary lights, its failure to resolve the leak meant the resident was exposed to a serious risk for a prolonged period. There is also no record that it completed a full test of the electrics, which would have been reasonable. This is likely to have caused her distress and damaged the landlord and tenant relationship. This is evident through her asking the landlord to move her to another property due to the safety concerns she had at her property.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it left the resident with temporary lighting, as it did not raise follow on works after it had made electrics safe in her property on 10 July 2024. This was a record keeping failure that impacted on the resident’s household, who had been without permanent lighting for 29 days. It is also unclear from the landlord’s records when it reinstated the permanent lighting at her property.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged it had failed to resolve the leak at the resident’s property and explained what it was doing to remedy the issue. This was reasonable. However, there is no record in its evidence of its roofing report, so it is unclear if this identified the cause of the leak or not. It would have been reasonable for it to have sent the resident details of this report, clearly explaining the findings and recommendations. Its failure to do so is likely to have caused the resident distress and confusion.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the impact the issue was having on her and her son’s health. However, there is no record that its response considered theis. Its records show she cancelled a repair to redecorate her hallway due to concerns it would impact on her son’s vulnerability. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered what support or adjustments it could offer. However, there is no record that it did this, which is likely to have caused the resident distress and confusion and was a failure to follow the obligations of its repairs policy.
The landlord’s communication with the resident and its record keeping were poor. There is no evidence that it identified the cause of the leak, or that it kept the resident updated on its progress to resolve the issue and she had to chase it for answers. Its evidence also included repair logs for the resident’s property, which predated her tenancy start date, yet still had her name on them. This caused us confusion in investigating the resident’s complaint and was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 2 response offered the resident £250 compensation for loss and strain. While this went some way to address its failures, we do not consider this was proportionate in view of the impact the issue had on her, the further failures we have found and the resident’s report that the issue is still ongoing. The landlord has not demonstrated it followed its repair obligations set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair the issue within a reasonable amount of time.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of flooding caused by water leaks at her property. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. It says it will not consider complaints that it has already dealt with under its complaints policy, where it is satisfied it has provided a complete and fair response.
The landlord’s compensation policy says if a customer:
1. believes it is responsible for damages to personal possessions or decorations, or such items have been damaged as a result of a property failure due to its negligence, it will consider reimbursing the customer or making the damage right to avert the need for the customer to make a claim at further inconvenience and cost to themselves. Any compensation paid will take into consideration the age and current value of any items damaged.
2. feels it is responsible for damages to personal possessions or decorations, depending on the amount being claimed for this may be treated as a negligence claim and referred to our insurers.
It was positive that the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her, as part of its investigation. Although its stage 2 response was 1 working day over its published timeframe, it did contact her to advise of this delay which was reasonable, and the delay had no impact on the resident.
It is unclear why the landlord considered the resident’s complaint when she raised it on 23 July 2024. It had already considered and responded to the issue and concluded its complaint process on 3 January 2024. It would have been reasonable for it to have told her that it was not satisfied with its previous response or refused her complaint and referred her to this Service. However, it did neither which was a complaint handling failure, which is in conflict with its complaints policy and is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 acknowledgement 1 day after she had raised her complaint, which was reasonable. However, it sent its stage 2 acknowledgement 2 working days beyond its published timeframe. Although, this delay was minor it did not recognise and apologise for this in its complaint response, which was a complaint handling failure.
The resident had told the landlord that the leak had caused damage to her belongings. Its complaint responses told her it was not responsible for insuring her belongings and would not offer her compensation as a result. However, its compensation policy did provide options to compensate her for damages to her belongings. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered if its failure to repair the leak was due to its negligence and if it should have paid her compensation or not, in line with its compensation policy. If it had done this and decided it was not negligent it would have been reasonable for it to have provided her with information on how she could make an insurance claim. However, there is no record it did this, which was a complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it was unable to rehouse the resident, because the matter was a repair issue. It told her to contact its housing options team to discuss a possible move due to overcrowding. This seems dismissive, as she wanted to move house due to the impact the leak was having on her son’s health, not overcrowding. However, there is no record that it considered her son’s vulnerability and the impact the ongoing leak was having on him. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered this and what impact this had on its position about it rehousing her.
The evidence that the landlord provided us did not include its stage 2 complaint response from September 2024. Instead, it sent us its stage 2 response from January 2024. This was a record keeping failure, which was resolved by the resident sending us the correct stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding caused by water leaks at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. Pay £550 compensation directly to the resident, comprised of:
  1. £250 for the failures identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding caused by water leaks at her property.
  2. £50 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  3. £250 it offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already paid this.
3. Provide the resident and this Service with written confirmation of the outstanding works needed to address the leak at her property, along with a clear timeline for the works.
4. Record the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities on its systems if it has not already done so. Consider these vulnerabilities and if it needs to make any reasonable adjustments in the services it provides her. Provide her and this Service with written confirmation if any are needed and what they are.
5. Contact the resident to discuss her housing options, considering the impact the leak has had on her son’s health. Provide her and this Service with written confirmation of the outcome of this.
6. Review its position on not awarding compensation for the damage to her belongings, considering if this was due to any negligence or not, in line with its compensation policy.

Recommendation

It is recommended the landlord arranges complaints handling training for its staff to ensure its complaints policy is followed and its record keeping practices are maintained to a high standard.