London Borough of Ealing (202426484)

Background

1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property since November 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom, ground and first floor maisonette. Between February 2022 and November 2023, the property’s previous owner made multiple reports of a leak from the flat above. From November 2023 the resident started to report to the landlord that the leak occurred whenever it rained. From February to July 2024 the landlord carried out some repairs, but these did not resolve the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. A leak in the resident’s home and the subsequent damp.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to a leak in the resident’s home and the subsequent damp.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There were significant delays in the landlord taking steps to address the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak. The landlord carried out multiple repairs but failed to enact a lasting repair to the leak. The landlord failed to inspect or treat the damp and mould caused by the ongoing leak.
6. The landlord has made an appropriate offer of compensation for its complaint handling failures and given its staff additional training. However, as it made this offer a considerable amount of time after the complaints process, we have made a finding of maladministration.

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.

7. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the building. The landlord’s repairs policy also says that routine repairs will be completed within 28 working days, but it prioritises according to resident needs. However, the policy does not provide any timescale for planned repairs. The policy also says that sometimes an inspection may be required to identify the repair but does not provide a timescale for inspections.
8. On 13 November 2023 the resident reported that there was a recurring leak in one of the bedrooms. Additionally, the Ombudsman is aware that on 8 December 2024 the resident raised her first complaint about the landlord’s failure to resolve the leak. Within that complaint she said she suspected the leak was coming from the flat above and it was causing black mould to grow in the room.
9. However, the information seen shows the landlord did not inspect the leak until 23January 2024. This was outside of the timescales set out in its repairs policy and the landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman cannot but conclude that such a delay was unnecessary and unreasonable.
10. On 2 February 2024 the landlord responded to the resident’s first complaint about the leak and mould. It said that following the inspection on 23 January 2024 a contractor attended on 1 February 2024 to investigate and recommend a temporary repair to the leak. It said this inspection found the leak was from the balcony and rainwater gutters of the flat above. It confirmed it would carry out a temporary repair within 1 to 2 weeks and its capital works team would organise major works to resolve this “historical estate wide block design defects”. However, the landlord did not provide any timescale for the major works to resolve the known defects. It also said it would arrange for its damp and mould team to investigate the resident’s reports of mould in the property.
11. The landlord’s records indicate the disrepair works to renew the gutters throughout the resident’s block were raised on 20 February 2024 and completed on 1 July 2024. Additionally, the records indicate it raised works to clean the gutters on 27 June 2024 and these were completed on 25 July 2024. While the renewal of the gutters took around 5 months to complete, it is not unreasonable for works of this size to take an extended period of time to complete. The landlord also completed the cleaning of the gutters within its repairs policy timescales.
12. On 14 November 2024 the landlord raised an order for the inspection of the balcony above the resident’s property and another for the investigation of the leak in her property. The job notes say the last reported leak was in April 2023 and the landlord had found the parapet wall brick on the edge of the balcony was the cause. The landlord completed this inspection on 12 December 2024, however the records do not indicate what its findings were. This indicates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. The resident had been reporting the ongoing leak since November 2023 and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the landlord recording its findings from 12 December 2024.
13. Additionally, the landlord’s records do not provide a completion date for the order to inspect and fix the leak in the property. As such, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord did not complete these works and it has not provided an explanation as to why. As such, it has failed to adhere to its repairs policy timescales and the Ombudsman can not reasonably conclude that such a delay was reasonable. This delay has caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience as she has been unable to use the room for an extended period of time.
14. The landlord carried out a structural survey on 3 December 2024. However, the report only says that all areas were free from damage or defects and the gutters were clear. In its stage 2 response the landlord said a surveyor attended on 10 December 2024 and advised the leak originated from the balcony. It said a contractor would attend to investigate and if necessary fix the gully outlet works which it previously carried out above the bedroom ceiling. The records seen indicate this inspection and remedial works were completed on 20 February 2025.
15. Throughout the period considered in this report the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak by carrying out surveys and clearing the balcony gutters. In themselves these were reasonable responses to the resident’s reports as well as the findings of its surveys.
16. However, the evidence provided show the landlord had been aware of the ongoing leak in the exact same area since at least February 2022. Despite multiple attempts it had been unable to enact a lasting repair to the leak in the resident’s property. The Ombudsman acknowledges that identifying the source of a leak can be highly complex and can often take multiple visits and attempted repairs before a leak can be resolved. However, in this instance, the landlord’s letter of 2 February 2024 confirmed the leak was caused by the gutters as well as known structural defects. It also confirmed that its capital works team would organise major works to resolve these defects. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that steps have been taken to carry out any major works nor a timescale for when these will be completed. As a result of this failing the resident was left in a property with regular leaks for an extended period of time. This caused her distress and inconvenience as well as impacting her full enjoyment of the property, as she has said she has been unable to use that bedroom.
17. The Ombudsman is also aware that during the period considered in this report the landlord received multiple reports from other flats about leaks from the balcony above. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the issues experienced by the resident are not isolated to her property and are also impacting other residents.
18. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has also noted the landlord has not provided evidence to show it inspected or treated the damp and mould at any point during the period considered in this report. This was unreasonable given that in its letter of 2 February 2024 it told the resident that it would carry out an inspection. As a result the resident was left in a property with untreated damp and mould caused by the leak for an extended period of time. This caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience as well as impacting her full enjoyment of the property.
19. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident said in her complaint that the conditions in the property caused by the leak have impacted her health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings.
20. Overall the landlord failures, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to:
    1. Keep adequate records.
    2. Adhere to its repairs policy timescales.
    3. Carry out a lasting repair to the leak.
    4. Inspect and treat damp and mould.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged there had been service failings and offered £200 for the distress caused. The Ombudsman is also aware that since issuing its stage 2 the landlord has carried out further inspections and remedial works to try and resolve the leak. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of works to treat the damp and mould since it issued the stage 2 response.
22. On 12 September 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident following a review of its complaints process and this complaint. It apologised that the resident was still experiencing a leak into the property. It said it had had issues with gaining access to the flat above and this had delayed its progress in identifying and resolving the leak. However, it acknowledged that it had not made enough efforts to keep the resident updated on the works and this led her to regularly chase it. It said it had inspected the property on 4 and 9 September 2025 and believed the leak was caused by deteriorated pipes between her property and the 1 above. It confirmed the works to fix this would start ‘imminently’ and would be overseen to ensure they were progressed in a timely manner. It also said it would make sure the resident was regularly updated. As part of this review the landlord offered an additional £300 compensation. It did not provide a breakdown for this additional compensation, therefore the Ombudsman is of the understanding that £150 of this was for its response to the leak and the other £150 was for its complaint handling.
23. The Ombudsman may make a determination of reasonable redress where a landlord has offered compensation that provides redress for failures and satisfactorily resolves the complaint. This is not usually the case where the landlord makes an offer of compensation after its complaints procedure. Redress should be prior to when the Ombudsman accepts a complaint for investigation and on the landlord’s own initiative.
24. This Service has noted that the landlord revised its offer of compensation when it reviewed the case due to our investigation. We accept that the new compensation offer is more appropriate in recognition of its failings and represented an attempt to put things right. However, not only did it offer this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted, but it has also not addressed all of the failings identified in this report. Additionally, the landlord has not provided a timeline for these ‘imminent’ repairs, evidence of it having completed these works or when they will be. The resident confirmed to this Service on 24 October 2025 that she still experiences a leak in the bedroom whenever it rains.
25. In view of this, a finding of maladministration has been found. We have ordered the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay an additional £100 for its failure to inspect and treat the damp and mould. This brings the compensation for this head of complaint to £450. This sum is in-line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for complaints where the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Additionally, the Ombudsman also orders the landlord to provide the resident and this Service with a timed action plan for the repairs referred to in its letter of 12 September 2025 and any major works to fix block design defects.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It also says the landlord will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
27. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its policy timescales. However, aside from responding on time, landlords should use the complaint process to understand and resolve the substantive issues complained about. In this case, the landlord did not fully address and resolve the resident’s underlying concerns in its complaint responses. Rather it merely said that as its contractor was now in contact with her they would address her concerns. This was not a reasonable response and was not in-line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
28. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request over a month later on 15 November 2024. It then issued its stage 2 response 24 working days after the acknowledgement. These delays were not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy nor has it provided an explanation for the delays. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman can not reasonably conclude the delays were reasonable. Additionally, the landlord did not acknowledge or address these delays in its stage 2 response.
29. On 12 September 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident following a review of its complaints process and this complaint. It acknowledged that it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request nor issue its stage 2 response within its policy timescales. It also acknowledged it had not addressed the delays in the complaint response. As part of this review the landlord offered an additional £300 compensation. It did not provide a breakdown for this additional compensation, therefore the Ombudsman is of the understanding that £150 of this was for the complaint handling failures. The landlord also said it had provided additional training to staff on managing complaints and recruited specialist staff for a team responsible for ensuring ‘robust’ complaints investigations.
30. The Ombudsman may make a determination of reasonable redress where a landlord has offered compensation that provides redress for failures and satisfactorily resolves the complaint. This is not the case where the landlord makes an offer of compensation after its complaints procedure. Redress should be prior to when the Ombudsman accepts a complaint for investigation and on the landlord’s own initiative.
31. This Service has noted that the landlord revised its offer of compensation when it reviewed the case due to our investigation. We accept that the new compensation offer is more appropriate in recognition of its failings and represented an attempt to put things right. However, it offered this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process.
32. In view of this, we will not make a finding of reasonable redress despite the landlord now offering proportionate compensation for the failings in its complaint handling. Instead a finding of maladministration has been made. We have ordered the landlord to pay the compensation offered in its letter of 12 September 2025.

Learning

33. It was positive that the landlord took steps to improve its complaint handling, aimed at preventing delays and similar failures in the future.
34. The landlord appropriately identified in its letter of 12 September 2025 that it had not been adequately updating the resident about the progress of the works. The agent also confirmed they would oversee the works personally to ensure the resident was kept up to date.