London Borough of Enfield (202320682)

Decision
Case ID	202320682
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Enfield
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 October 2025

Background

At the time of the complaint resident was a leaseholder of the property, which is a flat within a purpose built block. The resident no longer owns the property. The resident rented the property to a private tenant and did not live there herself.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The resident being charged the empty homes level of council tax.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the drainage and guttering.
3. The landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

The resident being charged the empty homes level of council tax is outside of our jurisdiction.
There was a reasonable level of redress in the landlord’s response to of repairs to the drainage and guttering.
There was a reasonable level of redress in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

In summary, we have found that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to provide redress to the resident in response to her complaint. This included an apology, a reflection of what went wrong, and an offer of compensation which was above what we would look to award in the circumstances.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £500 and £75 offered in the final complaint response for its communication and complaint handling failure. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis this compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 January 2023	The resident contacted the landlord to report that there was a drainage pipe hanging from the outside wall of the building and that water was seeping into the walls of the flat.
11 January 2023	The landlord visited the property but noted it could not find any damage to the drainage pipes or guttering.
24 January 2023	The resident raised a complaint that a blocked drain had caused damage to the internal wall of her property.
15 February 2023	The resident said that she had been told that there was water damage in the kitchen and water was trickling down the outside wall of the property. The resident said that the property was unoccupied so the landlord would need to collect the keys from the letting agent to inspect, or attend with the letting agent. The resident could not grant access herself because she lived too far away.
20 February – 3 March 2023	The landlord inspected the guttering and drainage after the resident reported water damage in the kitchen. It recommended works to resolve the blockage and repair the drainage system, which were completed on 3 March 2023.
27 February 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It was in the process of carrying out planned maintenance of downpipes and guttering. It was sorry for the delay in unblocking the drain. Some of the issues the resident had raised were currently under review by the Housing Ombudsman Service so it could not comment further.
August to September 2023	The resident reported that the drain was blocked. The landlord attended to unblock the drain and clean the area. It recommended that the gully be rebuilt because it was cracked, this took place on 20 September 2023.
23 November 2023 and 21 January 2024	The resident raised a stage 2 complaint to the landlord because of ongoing issues with the drains. The resident reported water damage in the property. She explained that she could not rent out the property in its condition and that she was having to pay council tax at the empty property rate as a result.
13 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: It had no record of any outstanding repair requests but noted that neighbouring properties had raised repairs. It accepted that it did not have an effective maintenance programme and offered £2,500 for its failure to have a maintenance plan for the block. It offered £1,500 for poor maintenance of the block. It offered £500 for its poor communication. It could not comment on the resident’s complaint about her council tax rate because that was outside of the scope of its role as a landlord. It offered £75 for its delay in responding to the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she was unhappy with the level of compensation because of the distress caused to her and her private tenants who had occupied the property at the time.

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 resident being charged the empty homes level of council tax
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in this capacity because council tax is set in its capacity as a local authority. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the amount of council tax charged to the resident. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Complaint	The response to reports of repairs to the drainage and guttering.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident previously complained to us about the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the drainage and guttering and we made a determination in March 2023. This investigation will not reconsider evidence that we previously looked at in making a determination. Instead, we will focus on the landlord’s handling of the issues raised from January 2023 (that led to the complaint) to November 2024 when the landlord provided its final complaint response.
We understand that the resident is unhappy that the landlord did not follow a recommendation we made in a previous determination to introduce a planned maintenance programme. We make recommendations with the intention of trying to help resolve the outstanding dispute. However, recommendations are different to orders and it is up to the landlord to decide whether to act on our recommendations or implement them into its processes. We would not make a finding of maladministration on the basis that a landlord chose not to follow a recommendation made by us.
In the interests of fairness, we have only considered the elements of the resident’s complaint which she has raised with the landlord and that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Our role is to assess how the landlord has handled the matter and this will include an assessment of its final response. The resident will need to raise any additional issues with the landlord as a complaint, she can then escalate them to us if she remains unhappy with the landlord’s response.
The landlord aims to complete routine repairs in 30 calendar days. Its January 2023 attendance was within this time frame. We understand the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord did not find anything wrong with the pipe, but landlords are entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to complete. In February 2023 it also attended within this time frame.
Because the resident was not living in the property, the landlord experienced challenges gaining access. The landlord attended to carry out an 8 week mould check but the resident was not available to grant access. Repairs and maintenance appointments often need the cooperation of both parties to make sure that they are completed correctly.
The landlord rebuilt the drain gully more than 30 calendar days after the resident had reported the blockage. There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date on the action it was taking or when the repair would be completed. This would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations and provide assurances that it was taking the matter seriously.
In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised to the resident that it had not maintained the drainage system or introduced a programme of maintenance. It also accepted that there had being some failures in its communication with the resident. The landlord also committed to a further inspection and to complete any required work but it is unclear if this took place. The resident has now sold the property, therefore it is not possible for us to order the landlord to carry out any further repairs.
The landlord’s apology, reflection, and compensation offer were appropriate to address the issues the resident raised. The compensation offered related to wider issues than considered in this complaint which included wider maintenance of the block and the lack of a maintenance plan. We consider the compensation offered of £500 for poor communication is proportionate redress for the failing we identified – the poor communication relating to the guttering and drainage issues. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.
We understand the resident is unhappy with the compensation of £4,500 offered by the landlord. She said the losses she experienced were greater. We cannot decide liability or award damages. That would be for a court to decide.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord took 24 days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and 55 days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This is outside of the response timeframes set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Although there were delays, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this. It offered £75 which recognised the inconvenience caused. We consider this sum proportionate to the frustration and inconvenience .