From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Barnet (202435181)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435181

London Borough of Barnet

26 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

Background

  1. The property is a flat in a block, with flats above and below. The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is a council.
  2. In January 2023 there was a leak into the property from above. It appeared to have been fixed, but on 9 January 2024, the resident reported another leak in the same place. The landlord initially believed it was an issue with the roof and attempts were made to find the source.
  3. The resident chased the landlord multiple times for updates. On 19 March 2024 she complained about receiving no information on how the leak was being fixed. She was also dissatisfied with miscommunication about appointments from the landlord. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 25 April 2024 it apologised for the miscommunication and her poor experience. It said the source of the leak was the flat above and it was trying to address it.
  4. There were attempts to access the flat above but the leak continued. The resident kept chasing the landlord for updates and escalated the complaint on 29 August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 October 2024. It acknowledged the slow progress in fixing the leak and said it was a complex issue due to different properties involved.
  5. The leak continued and the resident chased the landlord for updates. She referred the complaint to us, seeking repairs and compensation. The leak was repaired on 7 March 2025.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident was understandably upset when the leak occurred in January 2024. She had re-furbished the property following damage from the previous leak in 2023. She believed the leak to be coming from the same place.
  2. On 23 January 2024 the landlord told the resident its database showed the repair had been completed. This was not correct, and the landlord was likely referring to the previous leak. It was inappropriate to issue this response when the resident was still experiencing the leak. She chased the landlord for updates on 24 and 30 January and 2 February 2024. It responded on 2 February 2024 but it should not have taken 3 emails from the resident to prompt this. The landlord said there was an ongoing issue with the roof leaking and work was in progress to resolve this.
  3. Internal landlord communication showed it was trying to ascertain the cause of the leak. It was affecting the property and the flat below. Contractors were booked for 19 March 2024 but no work could be done due to water pooling on the roof.
  4. This was not sufficiently communicated to the resident. She chased the landlord on 18 March 2024 as she had not been kept updated. She said the damage to the property was significant, making it almost uninhabitable. The landlord told her contractors would attend the following day but did not give further details. The resident was frustrated by this and sought further information. She asked whether the contractors needed access to the property and whether the issue would be fixed that day. The landlord replied that it did not require access and the repairs team would contact her if that changed. The landlord did not update her that work could not be completed on attendance on 19 March 2024. This was not acceptable given the stress and inconvenience the issue was causing.
  5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 19 March 2024 following the contractors’ failure to attend. This may have been averted if the landlord had effectively updated her. She said a member of landlord staff had called her to say the contractors needed access to the property. The resident described the staff member as rude and arrogant as he denied the conversation when the resident later challenged him after the contractors’ non-attendance. We have not seen evidence of the phone call or what was said. However, given the lack of proper communication from the landlord evidenced throughout this case, the resident’s frustration is understandable.
  6. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the resident’s bad customer experience and the miscommunication regarding appointments. It also apologised for the interaction she had described with its staff member. It said the issue was being dealt with internally by management and the staff member was being monitored and receiving more training. This was an appropriate way of addressing that particular issue.
  7. The landlord noted that other properties in the block had reported leaks and it had established there was no issue with the roof. It said the repairs team most recently attended on 22 March 2024 and the source of the problem was the flat above the resident’s. As the resident above was also a leaseholder and the problem was within their flat, the landlord said it did not fall under its repairing responsibilities. This was correct information in accordance with the lease. The landlord was responsible for communal repair issues but individual leaseholders are responsible for repair issues within their own property. The landlord said it had informed the resident above about the necessary repairs and it was chasing them about it.
  8. While the responsibility for the repairs was believed to belong to another leaseholder, the landlord had a responsibility to keep the resident updated. It failed to do so throughout May and June 2024, which was unacceptable. Given the impact the leak was having on the property, there should have been more effective communication and liaison between the parties.
  9. On 2 July 2024 a contractor identified that the leak was coming from a communal pipe, although it was inside the above resident’s flat. Internal landlord communication showed it tried to address this. The pipe was enclosed in a box panel, behind bathroom tiles which the above resident had paid for, so was reluctant to remove. It was understandably difficult for the landlord to fix the pipe when it did not have easy access.
  10. The landlord provided a more meaningful update to the resident on 19 July 2024. It said where the leak was coming from and accepted responsibility as it was a communal pipe. It explained what it had done so far and what it still needed to do. This was positive but did little to alleviate the resident’s stress as the leak had been ongoing for 7 months.
  11. The resident escalated the complaint on 29 August 2024 as the leak continued. The fact the landlord had not updated her since 19 July 2024 was unacceptable and a failure in communication. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the slow progress and said that managing leaks between properties was complex. It explained there had been difficulties regarding responsibility as the properties involved were owned by different people. This position was frustrating, but understandable. The landlord said it was trying to arrange access and inspections for several properties at the same time to fix the leak. The landlord also provided the resident with its buildings insurance details so she may claim for damage to her property. This was correct and appropriate.
  12. Internal landlord communication on 22 October 2024 showed a contractor had said the leak was coming from a kitchen waste pipe between properties where the soil stack was. It noted it was a common problem as the copper pipe disintegrated. It again said access to the pipe was inside the flat above. This was the same information as recorded on 2 July 2024. The landlord had already identified the problem so it is unclear what actions it was taking to resolve the issue. There is no evidence of progress being made or sufficient landlord action at this time.
  13. The resident chased the landlord for updates in November and December 2024 and, from the evidence provided to us, received no reply. It was a failure in service that she was not being kept updated.
  14. There seemed to be confusion from the landlord in January 2025. Internal emails questioned whether follow on works were needed and said the leak needed to be inspected. The fact that was being questioned is concerning, when the leak had been ongoing for so long. The resident had been continuously chasing, so staff should have been aware of the situation.
  15. On 10 January 2025 the landlord recorded that the leak was resolved and it had confirmed it with the resident. It said there was no further action needed and works could be closed. This was incorrect and a failure. The resident told the landlord the works had not been completed and the leak was still present. The fact she had to do this was inappropriate and unfair. The resident cannot be expected to trust the landlord when there is such miscommunication.
  16. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 February 2025 asking for an update. She said the leak was getting worse and described the water as gushing. She also chased this on 19, 20, 25 and 26 February 2025. The landlord did not respond and this was a failure. The fact this issue was causing distress to the resident and damage to her property should have prompted a more proactive response from the landlord.
  17. Internal communication showed the landlord considered forcing entry to the flat above, due to the resident’s report that the leak was worse. A contractor visited on 19 February 2025 and confirmed the leak was coming from a stack pipe in the flat above. It was noted the damage in the property showed the leak had been going on for a long time. This is, again, a repetition of previous contractor visits months earlier. This was frustrating for the resident as the source of the problem had been identified multiple times with no resolution.
  18. It is appreciated that the landlord had trouble accessing the flat above, but allowing the leak to continue for this long was not acceptable. On 21 February 2025 the landlord noted that the resident above had refused access as they did not want the landlord to open up the tiles and panelling of their new bathroom suite. There were some circumstances outside of the landlord’s control, but it was not as proactive as it could have been, given the time that had passed. The difficulties with access do not excuse the failure to keep the resident updated.
  19. The leak was repaired on 7 March 2025, over a year after the resident’s first report. While there were difficulties due to the leak being inside a leaseholder’s property, this delay is unacceptable. There were numerous failures in communication and confusion and delays in identifying the problem, with records repeating the same information without action. The continued failure to update the resident, who spent a lot of time chasing the landlord, caused stress and inconvenience. Given the length of time the issue went on and the repeated failures, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
  20. The repair and replacement of items damaged in the property is an insurance matter and the resident has correctly been signposted to the landlord’s building insurer. However, the resident should be compensated for the time, stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s repeated failure to respond and communicate. Despite acknowledging failings in its complaint responses, the landlord did not consider whether such compensation might be appropriate.
  21. A sum of £400 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where maladministration has adversely affected the resident but has not had a permanent impact. The fact the landlord continued to fail in communicating with the resident after the complaints process showed it failed to address the detriment to her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report.