London Borough of Ealing (202516407)

Decision
Case ID	202516407
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Ealing
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026

Background

1. The resident reported a leak from the flat above her property. She said the leak had caused damage to the plastering on her ceilings. The landlord inspected both the resident’s property and the flat above to identify the source of the leak. The resident also reported a leak from the soil pipe above her property. The landlord advised us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks from the flat above and the soil pipe.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the flat above and the soil pipe.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

5. It took over a year after the resident reported the leak in June 2024 for the landlord to identify the source of the leak in the upstairs flat. At the time of sending its stage 2 reply it had not provided the resident with a clear timescale for when it would carry out the necessary repairs. The landlord also did not provide adequate progress updates to the resident. Although the landlord apologised for its failings and offered compensation in its final complaint response, we do not consider the landlord’s offer to have been proportionate to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the flat above and the soil pipe. This includes an additional payment of £250.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.   The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 March 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The resident has told us that damp patches continue to appear on the bathroom and hallway ceilings and that matters are not resolved. The landlord should therefore arrange a further inspection. It should also write to the resident with the full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) along with timescales.

 Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 June 2025	The resident made a complaint about a leak from the flat above and the damage this was causing to her property. She referred to a job that the landlord had raised on 11 June 2024 regarding a leak from the flat above and said: Since the landlord had raised the job, 2 surveyors had attended and taken photos. She had also received a call from another surveyor who was unaware of the issues in her property. Her understanding was that the resident in the flat above had not been cooperative in giving access. The landlord had removed damaged plaster from her ceilings on 15 January 2025 and the ceilings had been left in that condition since then. The contractor tried to access the soil pipe to address an unrelated leak but had not been able to access it. She had not heard anything further about this issue. She had contacted the landlord on 10 April and 2 June 2025 to chase the matter and, as a result, plumbers were due to attend the flat above on 4 June 2025. She asked the landlord to provide a clear timeline of when it would complete the works. She also requested compensation.
24 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it apologised for the delay in rectifying the leak to the resident’s home. It said: In mid-2021 the COVID-19 pandemic had affected surveyors’ and contractors’ inspections. During 2023 the landlord experienced contractual issues with its repairs contractor, which caused a backlog of repairs. However, it now had a new contractor in place and had produced a recovery plan. It had been experiencing problems getting access to the flat above, however, it had now obtained access and its contractor would attend on 24 June 2025. It would take further action if it continued to experience access difficulties. A surveyor had attended the resident’s property on 23 June 2025 and identified various repairs that were needed, including replastering, painting with stain block paint and replacing a section of skirting board. It would carry out these repairs once it had repaired the leak.
24 June 2025	The resident wrote to the landlord to say she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response because she said: The landlord had not addressed all of the issues she had raised in her complaint. It had not explained why it was taking so long to resolve the issue, particularly as she had advised the landlord that the problem had been ongoing since 2021. It had not explained why it had been necessary for her to chase the landlord and why it had needed 3 surveyors to attend. It had not taken enforcement action to compel the resident in the flat above to give access. It had not answered her request for a clear timeline for the repairs.
16 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it said: Whilst COVID-19 had caused significant disruptions to its services, the delay in addressing the leak had been unacceptable as its database showed that the first leak had happened in October 2021. It acknowledged there had been a lack of proactive communication with the resident. It apologised for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the leaks. It had accessed the flat above 4 times without experiencing issues and it had attended each time within the standard 20-day timescale for routine repairs. This showed there had been minimal access problems. Its contractor had conducted a ‘flood test’ in the upstairs flat on 9 July 2025. The test had shown that the leak was not from the soil pipe but from water that was penetrating behind the tiles in the bathroom of the upstairs flat. The landlord was currently waiting for the contractor’s detailed report, which it was expecting within the next 2 days. It would then raise the necessary repair orders and schedule the repairs, including redecorating the affected areas in the resident’s property. It apologised that the stage 1 reply did not meet the resident’s expectations and that its communications had not been more proactive. It upheld the complaint and offered compensation of £350.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 replies as they had not answered her questions and had not given her a timeline to carry out the repairs.

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the flat above and the soil pipe
Finding	Maladministration

7. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The structure includes walls, ceilings, and internal and external plasterwork. Section 11 also requires landlords to keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation, which includes water pipes, basins, sinks, baths and toilets.
8. The resident advised the landlord in her stage 1 and 2 complaints that she had experienced leaks from the flat above since mid-2021. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as us, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. We therefore consider it fair and reasonable for our investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from June 2024, which the resident said in her stage 1 complaint was when she had reported the latest leak.
9. The resident sent the landlord a letter from her GP saying that the condition of the property had exacerbated her medical conditions. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through insurers or the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
10. Following contact from the resident in early June, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 10 June 2024 and inspected the damage from the reported leak. The landlord acted appropriately by engaging a surveyor and the evidence suggests it did so within a reasonable time. His report shows that, while he was there, he also tried to visit the upstairs flat but was unable to obtain access.
11. The landlord’s records show that, following the surveyor’s visit, it had raised an order on 11 June 2024 to remove the damaged plaster from the hallway and bathroom ceilings in the resident’s property to allow the areas to dry. The order had a target completion date of 5 July 2024, however, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident by this date. This was unreasonable as the resident was aware the landlord had raised the job and was expecting the landlord to have booked an appointment or contacted her to explain why it had not booked the appointment.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 July 2024 and said she had not received any feedback regarding the surveyor’s visit and asked whether he had gained access to the upstairs flat. It was unreasonable that more than a month after the surveyor’s inspection, the landlord had not contacted the resident to update her. The resident advised the landlord that she had chased the surveyor on 24 June 2024 but had not received a response.
13. The landlord’s surveyor wrote to the resident on 16 July 2024 and confirmed that he was due to inspect the upstairs flat on 17 July 2024. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 August 2024 to ask for an update. She said that no work had been done in her property and the leak was still ongoing. She also said there was a leak from the soil pipe which ran through the building. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not provided any updates to the resident more than a month after the surveyor had written to her. The resident had explained that the reported leaks were still ongoing and were causing her distress.
14. The landlord’s records show that during September to December 2024, it carried out works to the upstairs flat and checked the resident’s bathroom ceiling for the possible presence of asbestos. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated of progress. This was unreasonable as she had asked for an update in August 2024.
15. In her stage 1 complaint on 3 June 2025, the resident said that the damaged plaster had been removed from her ceilings on 15 January 2025 and she had chased the landlord for updates on 10 April and 23 June 2025. Despite this, the landlord’s records show that at the time of its stage 2 reply on 16 July 2025, it had not yet carried out repairs to resolve the reported leak from the upstairs flat and therefore it had not replastered the resident’s ceilings. It was unreasonable that more than a year after the resident reported the leak in June 2024, the landlord had not resolved the problem.
16. The landlord said in its stage 2 reply that its contractor had carried out further testing for leaks in the upstairs flat and found that water was penetrating behind the tiles in the bathroom when the shower was in use. It said it was waiting for the detailed report from its contractor before raising the necessary orders. Whilst we understand that it can be difficult to trace and resolve leaks when another property is involved, the time taken by the landlord to identify the source of the leak was unreasonable. The resident had reported the leak over a year before and the landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply that it had managed to access the upstairs flat on at least 4 occasions. This was despite initially saying in its stage 1 response that it had experienced access difficulties in relation to the upstairs flat.
17. As well as the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to the leaks from the upstairs flat, the plaster on the resident’s ceilings in the hallway and bathroom had remained in an unfinished and unsightly condition for over 6 months. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlord was not proactive in providing progress updates to the resident and this resulted in her having to chase the landlord for updates.
18. In summary, we have found the following failings by the landlord:
    1. It took over a year after the resident reported the leak in June 2024 for the landlord to identify the source of the leak in the upstairs flat.
    2. At the time of sending its stage 2 reply on 16 July 2025, the landlord had not provided the resident with a clear timescale for when it would carry out the repairs to the upstairs flat or to the resident’s property.
    3. The landlord did not provide adequate progress updates to the resident and consequently she had to chase the landlord on various occasions for information.
19. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
20. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 2 reply to acknowledge its failings. It apologised for the delay in resolving the leak and for the lack of proactive communication, which meant the resident had to chase for updates. It sought to put things right by reassuring the resident that once it had received the contractors report in the next 2 days, it would raise the necessary repairs and ring the resident with the details. The landlord also acknowledged the inconvenience and frustration the resident had experienced and offered her compensation of £350 to recognise the impact of the leak.
21. We have considered the level of compensation offered and whilst it was welcome that the landlord had tried to put things right by offering financial redress, we do not consider the amount offered was proportionate to the failings we have identified. It does not, in our view, adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to the leak, the condition of the ceilings and the frustration of having to chase the landlord for updates.
22. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £250. This brings the total compensation to £600. The figure of £600 is within the range of sums suggested in our Remedies Guidance for situations where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. It takes into account that the landlord acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right, however, its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
23. We have noted that various events took place in relation to the reported leak after the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 16 July 2025, such as the landlord temporarily rehousing the resident. However, we have only investigated the events up to the landlord’s stage 2 reply as we considered it fair and reasonable to do so. This is because a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response.
24. Although we have not investigated events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply, the resident advised us in February 2026 that the ceilings had been replastered but there were still damp patches on the ceilings. We have therefore recommended the landlord to arrange a further inspection to check whether there are still signs of leaks and to write to the resident with its findings, including a timescale for carrying out any further repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

25. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. In the case of complex complaints, the landlord may extend these timescales for responding. However, the extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
26. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 3 June 2025, which the landlord acknowledged on 11 June 2025. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it took 6 working days to acknowledge the complaint rather than the 5 working days in its policy.
27. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 24 June 2025, which was 9 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord therefore replied within an appropriate timescale.
28. The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 June 2025 to say she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 25 June 2025 and then sent its stage 2 reply on 16 July 2025, which was 15 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord therefore responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timescale.
29. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales. Although the landlord had not resolved the leak at the time it sent its stage 2 reply, it had appropriately used its stage 2 to address the various points raised by the resident in her complaint. Her main concerns had been the delay in resolving the issues, the landlord’s lack of communication and a request for a clear timeline for the repairs. In terms of the last point, the landlord explained that it was expecting the contractor’s report imminently and would use this to raise the orders and schedule the repairs. The landlord also addressed the resident’s question about why it had not taken enforcement action in relation to the upstairs resident. It explained that the upstairs resident had provided access on various occasions. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The delays in addressing the leak from the upstairs flat suggest a lack of tracking and monitoring of outstanding repairs. It is particularly important for landlords to track and monitor complex repairs, such as those where access is needed to a neighbouring property.

Communication

31. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The landlord did not provide regular updates and therefore the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates. In situations where a landlord is experiencing difficulties tracing and resolving a leak, it is important to maintain regular contact with the resident to provide reassurance that it is dealing with the issue.