London Borough of Camden Council (202429579)

Background

1. The leaseholder let her ground floor flat to her son and 2 others at the time of the complaint. The landlord is the freeholder of the six‑floor block. The leaseholder complained about leaks from the flats directly above. This report refers to the first floor flat as Flat 1, the second floor flat as Flat 2, and so on. During the complaint, the leaseholder’s son contacted the landlord on her behalf. We’ve referred to them both as ‘the leaseholder’ in this report for ease.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks and the resulting damp, mould, and damage.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of leaks and the resulting damp, mould, and damage.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not demonstrate good practice as it did not take active ownership of the leaks. It closed jobs before checking leaks had stopped and maintained poor records, which led to significant and avoidable delays. It also failed to keep the leaseholder informed, which added to the distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder. It took steps to put this right and made an offer of compensation, however this was not sufficient to address the distress and inconvenience experienced by the leaseholder.
5. The landlord dealt with the leaseholder’s complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

6. The leaseholder said they incurred property damage and loss of rental income due to the leaks. We do not usually order the landlord to reimburse leaseholders for these damages as it is not within our remit to establish whether the damage or loss were directly caused by the landlord’s failures. These matters are more appropriately addressed through an insurance claim. We’ve therefore not considered them further. Instead, we’ve assessed whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the leaseholder’s reports.
7. The leaseholder also stated that the leaks had caused personal injury and impacted health conditions. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for those affected to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have looked at

8. Under the terms of the leaseholder’s lease, the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building and shared pipework. Leaseholders are responsible for repairs and maintenance inside their own property. This includes pipes serving only their property. They must keep their property in good repair and ensure it does not affect other parts of the building. The lease allows the landlord to access leaseholder properties on 48 hours’ notice, or sooner in emergencies. It also says that where a leaseholder fails to complete a notified repair within 3 months, the landlord may complete the work and recharge them the cost.
9. The landlord’s repair policy sets out its responsibilities for its tenanted properties. It says it is responsible for services, including water and boiler pipes it has installed. The leaseholder is responsible for unblocking sinks and bath waste pipes unless the failure is due to age. The policy allows landlords to enter homes to complete emergency repairs to the property or those neighbouring it, at all reasonable hours. It can force entry, if necessary.
10. The landlord attended the leaseholder’s property on 27 February 2023, which was in line with its same day response time for emergency repairs. Landlords should keep complete and accurate records of inspections and outcomes. In this case, the landlord’s records were limited. They did not explain its inspection findings, the repair required or whether it had inspected Flat 1, which was tenanted. The contractor’s note only stated: “leaseholder’s responsibility”. However, as the leak reported was coming through the ceiling of the property, it was unlikely to have been from pipes serving the leaseholder’s flat, so not their responsibility to resolve.
11. Landlords are expected to keep leaseholders updated. We’ve seen no evidence that the landlord updated the leaseholder and explained that it had closed the job. This caused time and trouble for the leaseholder who had to report the leak was ongoing, on 10 March 2023. The landlord attended that day, reinspected, and completed the repair at Flat 1. This was reasonable and in line with its emergency repair timeframe. However, there is no evidence it updated the leaseholder and then monitored the status of the leak.
12. The landlord attended within emergency timescales after the leaseholder’s further report on 19 May 2023. It traced the leak to Flat 2 whose occupier was a leaseholder. It recorded they were responsible for a repair to a waste pipe. We’ve seen correspondence stating that the landlord reinspected Flat 2 in June 2023. This showed good practice to oversee completion of the work. That inspection led to it requesting a further inspection of Flat 1. However, we’ve seen no evidence of contact with the leaseholder around that time. This suggests inadequate record keeping, which may have contributed to the landlord’s poor handling of issue when it closed the repair on 27 June 2023. It did this after Flat 1 advised no work was required, without confirming with the leaseholder that the leak had stopped.
13. This caused further time and trouble for the leaseholder, who had to report the ongoing leak again on 29 June 2023. The landlord attended in line with its emergency timeframe. Landlords are expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of ongoing leaks. Therefore, its decision to downgrade the repair and defer it until August 2023 was unreasonable. The landlord should have regraded the issue as an urgent repair, requiring attendance within 5 working days. It should also have followed up with the tenant of Flat 1 to ensure the repair was completed within that timeframe and kept the leaseholder updated. There is no evidence that it did so.
14. On 17 July 2023, the leaseholder reported damp and mould caused by the leak. The landlord tried to contact the tenant of Flat 1 without success and did not follow this up. It completed a damp and mould inspection at the leaseholder’s property on 31 July 2023. This was compliant with its damp and mould policy timescale for non-emergencies. The inspection found ‘severe’ damp and mould which was untreatable due to the ongoing leak.
15. The landlord inspected Flat 1 on 2 August 2023 and asked for emergency follow-on works to be raised to access the suspected source of the leak within that flat. However, it did not raise the works until 5 days later and did not treat them as an emergency. Therefore, the work was not attended until 17 August 2023. It was noted the leak was coming from Flat 2 whose leaseholder was told they were responsible for the repair. This was a reasonable response to the damp and mould survey, although unnecessarily delayed. However, the landlord did not follow this up with the leaseholder of Flat 2. It also did not update the leaseholder who was left chasing progress through 6 webchats between 15 and 29 August 2023. Landlords should not rely on neighbours to resolve issues amongst themselves and should take a proactive approach to ensuring leaseholders fulfil their repair obligations where these are affecting neighbouring properties. However, during one of these webchats, the leaseholder was told they should contact neighbours themselves to resolve the leak.
16. Also on 15 August 2023, the landlord requested a further damp and mould survey. The value of this is unclear, as a previous survey had already confirmed that remedial works would not be effective until the leak was resolved. It was unconfirmed at the time if it had been. The survey, due for 4 September 2023, was cancelled after being booked incorrectly and was not rescheduled. This caused further inconvenience to the leaseholder.
17. The survey was completed 2 days later. It repeated the findings and recommendation of the earlier survey. However, the job was closed without the landlord requesting follow-on works to inspect the other flats.
18. The landlord attended the leaseholder’s property on 12 October 2023 after the ceiling collapsed and made the property safe, in line with emergency timescales. Access issues prevented it from inspecting the necessary flats until 18 October 2023. That day it traced the leak to Flat 4 and repaired the tenant’s sink waste pipe. This was reasonable and in line with its urgent repair timescale. However, the landlord did not keep the leaseholder informed, leading them to make 5 webchats during October 2023 to chase an update. While the leaseholder was told the leak was being investigated, we have seen no evidence that they were then told the repair had been completed, nor asked if the leak had stopped. The landlord also did not follow up with the leaseholder to treat the damp and mould.
19. According to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the leaseholder reported a new leak, coming from Flat 3, on 12 June 2024. Again, it had problems accessing the affected flats and closed jobs without resolving the issue or confirming this with the leaseholder. This is particularly concerning since the landlord was aware of the severe damp and mould, and previous damage to the leaseholder’s flat. This would have extended the distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder.
20. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord appropriately signposted the leaseholder to its insurer and arranged a repairs manager visit on 26 July 2024. It apologised for delays in tracing the leaks and for closing some jobs too early. These were positive steps and showed an intention to resolve the matter. However, it suggested its contractors had attended the leaseholder’s property on 7 August 2023 and informed them they were responsible for the leak, which was not the case. Also, the landlord did not offer compensation in line with its compensation policy to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This resulted in further time and trouble for the leaseholder, who had to escalate the complaint. As per the Code, landlords should consider whether they can learn from a complaint to improve their service. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had done so.
21. On 2 August 2024, the landlord attended Flat 2 and repaired a sink and kitchen waste pipe. As a result, it cancelled a joint inspection scheduled for 14 August 2024 with the leaseholder, and Flats 1 and 3. The landlord did not update the leaseholder, who only became aware after chasing the missed appointment. This was further poor communication resulting in avoidable inconvenience.
22. In summary, the landlord responded promptly and in line with its emergency policy to the leaseholder’s initial report of leaks. This Service recognises that leaks affecting multiple properties can be difficult to trace and access issues can contribute to delays. However, the landlord did not manage the issue effectively. It took 8 months to fully resolve the persistent leaks reported in February 2023. It took 37 working days to identify and repair the leak reported in June 2024. These delays were unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s repair policy. The landlord relied on neighbouring properties to complete repairs without monitoring progress and following up on the damp and mould treatment required at the leaseholder’s property. It delayed completing follow-on works and closed repairs before confirming that the leak was resolved. The landlord did not keep the leaseholder informed or keep full records.
23. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated it would separately provide details of the permanent repair completed to address the leak in August 2024. However, there is no evidence that it has done this. It also offered £450 compensation. After the leaseholder provided evidence of the time and effort spent pursuing the matter, it increased this to £675. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position, the evidence related to matters that should have been evident from its own records. If its record keeping had been adequate, it would have been aware of the extent of the leaseholder’s contact and the delays experienced. This would have avoided the additional time and trouble the leaseholder incurred in evidencing the impact.
24. The landlord acknowledged shortcomings in its handling of the leaseholder’s reports and communication. It confirmed it would provide feedback to improve its service. This demonstrates that the landlord took the complaint seriously, sought to learn from the outcome, and took steps to put things right, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
25. However, the compensation amount does not fully reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder, who experienced leaks containing wastewater, a ceiling collapse and severe damp and mould. The extended duration of the leaks reported in February 2023 and June 2024 respectively, and the landlord’s poor communication, would have compounded the overall impact on the leaseholder beyond what would normally be expected for repairs of this nature. The landlord also did not offer £25 compensation in line with its compensation policy for its missed appointment on 14 August 2024. The landlord’s remedies policy allows awards of up to £1,000 for ‘severe and prolonged’ distress. Our compensation guidance suggests awards of between £600 and £1,000 for instances where a landlord’s failings have had a significant impact. We have ordered the landlord to pay the leaseholder £800. This award is in place of the £675 offered by the landlord.

26. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘The Code’) requires landlords to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and to respond at stages 1 and 2 within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord’s complaints policy mirrors these timeframes. It also requires landlords to define the complaint, explain its decisions, remedies offered and any outstanding actions. The landlord’s responses were detailed and compliant with the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. Our investigation has highlighted repair records which lack detail and missing communication records. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) explains that poor data management can prevent landlords from using information effectively to improve services. It provides eLearning and tools that can assist landlords in improving their information management practice.