London Borough of Ealing (202348401)

Background

1. The resident says he lives with his wife and young children. He had a disrepair claim filed with the landlord but separate to that he said that he reported the ceiling in the living room was dangerous. The ceiling later collapsed, which he felt could have been prevented. He said the collapse had posed a health risk to him and his family.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a collapsed ceiling in the living room.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a collapsed ceiling in the living room.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not take any immediate action to make the ceiling safe after the resident reported it had collapsed. It also did not evidence it had considered the family’s circumstances or whether any risk assessments were required.
5. The landlord did not comply with the complaint handling timeframes. It also provided inconsistent information at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaint responses.

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.

6. The resident said the ceiling collapse had a detrimental impact on his and his family’s health. The courts would be a more appropriate and effective means to determine the cause of any injury or deterioration of a health condition. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and legal obligations. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused.
7. The landlord’s repair handbook says that for emergency repairs it will aim to make the situation safe and arrange to complete the repair where necessary. Its repairs policy says it will aim to do this within 4 hours of the initial report.
8. The resident said the landlord should have acted before the ceiling collapsed as he had previously called to report that it looked dangerous. The landlord said it had no record of this call. We are aware that the landlord was in communication with the resident’s solicitor about a separate disrepair claim. As part of the claim, a survey was carried out on 27 February 2023 which noted damp and mould on the ceiling but did not note any structural or safety concerns.
9. After this survey report was issued, we have not seen any evidence to show the landlord was aware of any specific structural safety concerns with the ceiling until the resident reported that it had collapsed by email on 4 December 2023. Therefore, we do not find that the landlord acted inappropriately by not taking any action prior to the ceiling collapsing.
10. The landlord sent a surveyor to the property the day after the resident reported the ceiling had collapsed. The ceiling repair was completed 9 days later. Whilst waiting for repairs to be carried out, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether the resident and his family were at risk from any existing debris and dust or further falling debris and dust.
11. Overall, the landlord did not act in line with its policies and obligations. It failed to ensure that the ceiling was made safe within 4 hours of the report being received. It did not correctly identify the repairs as an emergency or evidence that it considered whether temporary accommodation was needed given the reported presence of young children in the property. It has not evidenced that any risk assessment was carried out to establish if there was any immediate risk. There was no evidence that it considered if any steps were necessary to mitigate any risk whilst waiting for repair work to be carried out.
12. It is not clear from the landlord’s compensation policy how it arrived at its offer of £20 per day for the time the repair took and the worry caused. However, this amount does not reflect the impact on, or distress and inconvenience caused to the family from the level of risk they were exposed to. We have ordered increased compensation in line with our remedies guidance for where there was a failure which has had no permanent impact on the resident.

13. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) March 2022 which applied at the time of this complaint, required landlords to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has provided its complaint policy which did not comply with the timescales in the Code. However, the landlord has explained that their policy was updated in March 2024. For the purposes of this case, we have relied on the policy which was in place when the initial complaint was logged and not the updated policy issued in March 2024.
14. The resident raised his complaint on 5 February 2024. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint 3 days after the 10-day timeframe expected to be compliant with the Code. Within the stage 1 response it says that the surveyor attended immediately and on 6 December 2024 which is not shown in the repair records provided by the landlord.
15. The landlord said that painting the ceiling would be the resident’s responsibility. However, it said it would arrange to do this once works to the property had been completed. It was positive that the landlord used its discretion here as part of trying to resolve the complaint.
16. The resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the stage 1 response on 27 February 2024. It responded to the stage 2 response 2 days after its 20-day timeframe. Within this response, it says the surveyor attended on 5 December 2024, a different date to the one provided at stage 1. No explanation or apology was provided by the landlord to explain the conflicting information provided.

Learning

Communication and record-keeping

17. The landlord identified in its final complaint response that it should improve its service and acknowledged that it should have competent surveyors who can appropriately assess risk. The landlord should ensure steps are taken to ensure both highlighted learnings are achieved.
18. The landlord should ensure that correct information is provided within its complaint responses, so that residents can trust that its records are accurate.
19. The information provided by the landlord was sufficient for our investigation.