London Borough of Enfield (202529422)

Decision
Case ID	202529422
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Enfield
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 March 2026

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat in a block. He lives with physical health conditions, which the landlord is aware of. He reported 2 leaks from the flat above and bathroom drainage issues, both of which caused significant damage.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The leaks.
2. The drainage issues.
3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the drainage issues.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The leaks

The landlord did not respond to both leaks in line with its repairs policy, causing significant delays in completing the repairs and addressing the resulting damage.

The drainage issues

The landlord did not investigate the reported drainage issues in line with its repairs policy, leaving the resident at risk of further flooding and damages.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint and delayed in issuing its response. It also failed to fully address the drainage issues in either response.

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 provided by a senior manager. 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 21 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up of: £400 for its failings in its handling of the leaks. £200 for its failings in its handling of the drainage issues. £100 for its failings in complaint handling. 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 21 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the drainage system of the property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the sanitaryware floodings. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 21 April 2026
4	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to identify if any further repair work to the bathroom walls, ceiling, skirting boards, and plastering is needed. If so, it must write to him and us by the due date giving a clear timeframe for completing the job in line with its repairs policy.	No later than 21 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 July 2025	The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. He said: He had experienced 22 leaks from the flat above over the last 10 years. His bathroom sanitaryware had flooded 12 times due to drainage issues. Both problems had caused extensive damage to the property, costing him a lot of money to repair or replace items. He had made over 10 complaints to the landlord, but the problems continued. On 15 June 2025, he had experienced another leak from the flat above and had to call the fire brigade to stop it. The leak caused major damage to his floors, carpets, walls, and ceiling. He was seeking a permanent solution to both issues, and compensation.
22 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had inspected the property on 19 August 2025 and, as a result, arranged decorating works for 30 September 2025 and carpentry works for 25 September 2025. The landlord also said it would assess whether any action was needed regarding the drainage issues. In addition, it said it would liaise with the occupant of the flat above to try to prevent further leaks.
26 August 2025	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said the landlord had not considered his costs for repairing the damage caused by both the leaks and the flooding from the drainage issues. He also explained that, for personal reasons, he did not have home insurance to cover these costs.
3 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: There were 12 documented reports of the resident’s bathroom flooding due to the drainage issue. The most recent leak was reported on 5 August 2025. It confirmed both issues had caused damage to electrical systems such as the bathroom lighting, the bathroom extractor fan, and the bathroom itself. It asked the resident to send receipts of his costs and provided its insurance claim form. It offered £100 compensation for the delay in repairing the leak.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 9 October 2025 the resident brought his complaint to us because he was dissatisfied with how the landlord handled the leaks, the drainage issue, the damage both issues caused, and the handling of the complaint. He sought compensation for the repairs he had carried out himself, and for the landlord to fix the issues with the drainage system.

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 handling of the leaks
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident said that he had been reporting leaks and drainage issues for over 10 years. While we do not dispute this, we encourage residents to raise unresolved complaints to us promptly so that any service failure by the landlord can be addressed in a timely manner. As issues become historical, evidence becomes difficult to obtain and verify. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events surrounding the resident’s formal complaint regarding the leaks and drainage issues.

What we did investigate

The resident said in his complaint that he experienced a leak from the flat above on 15 June 2025 and had to contact the fire brigade to stop it. We have not seen evidence that he contacted the landlord the same day.
We saw evidence that, on 16 June 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to report the incident from the previous day. He said the leak had caused a loss of electricity in the bathroom and damage to his wooden flooring, carpets, walls, and ceiling.
In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, a leak is classed as an emergency, and the landlord should attend within 4 hours to contain it and make the property safe. The policy also states that a loss of electricity, including unsafe lighting, should be repaired or made safe within one day.
There are repair logs dated 16 June 2025, but it is unclear from these what actions the landlord took. The records indicate that an electrician visited the property, but it is not clear whether this happened within the required timeframe. A follow‑up note on 19 June 2025 stated that “an electrician attended but they didn’t do anything to make it safe and then just left.”
While we have seen no evidence of an electrician’s appointment or any follow‑up work regarding the electrics, the resident did not report ongoing power issues– including a broken extractor and bathroom light – in his formal complaint to the landlord or when he brought the complaint to us.
We would expect a landlord to keep robust records of all contacts and repairs, but the evidence in this case is not comprehensive. The absence of detailed repair records makes it difficult to assess what work was carried out and whether any repairs were completed within the landlord’s required timescales.
The records show that by 24 June 2025 the landlord had visited the property and identified the need for decorating and carpentry works following the leak. The notes also indicate that a dehumidifier was required to help dry out the property. However, we have found no evidence that the landlord completed these works, provided a dehumidifier, or arranged any follow‑up action until the resident raised his formal complaint on 26 July 2025.
On 5 August 2025, the resident reported another leak from the flat above. The records show that the landlord was made aware, but there is no evidence confirming what, if any, action it took. This is a failing.
While we cannot confirm whether the landlord attended the property after either reported leak, its stage 2 response acknowledged that it failed to attend the 5 August 2025 leak within the required timeframe. Had the landlord attended on time, it may have been able to reduce the impact of the leak on the resident.
On 22 August 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had carried out an inspection on 19 August 2025, although we have seen no evidence of the inspection or any associated report. Despite this, the landlord said the inspection identified decorating and carpentry works, and that it would liaise with the occupant of the flat above to help prevent further leaks. The records show it booked the carpentry work for 25 September 2025 and the decorating work for 30 September 2025.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for completing plastering, floorboards, and skirting‑board repairs within 90 days of the resident’s request. However, internal decorating and flooring repairs are the resident’s responsibility.
While the landlord correctly identified the works it was responsible for and scheduled them, it missed an opportunity to explain the resident’s own repair obligations. As a result, the resident repeatedly chased the landlord in August and September 2025 for remedial work and compensation relating to damage the landlord was not responsible for repairing. This was a missed opportunity where the resident could have made a claim on the landlord’s insurance sooner.
The landlord did not address this part of the resident’s complaint until its stage 2 response on 3 October 2025. It provided the resident with an insurance claim form so he could submit a claim through the landlord’s public liability insurance. This was the appropriate action given that the resident did not have home or contents insurance.
The evidence shows that the carpentry work was completed on 25 September 2025, and internal records said the resident was satisfied with the outcome. The painting work was then completed during a second visit on 9 October 2025 as the landlord faced difficulty completing the work on 30 September 2025.
In both complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the problems the resident had experienced and offered £100 compensation for the delay in repairing the leaks. This amount was disproportionately low given the significance of the failings and was not in line with our remedies guidance.
Overall, although the landlord took some steps to address the leaks and the resulting damage, it was not proactive and failed to acknowledge all its repair failings in its complaint responses. This left the resident without clear information, prolonged uncertainty about the repairs, and added avoidable frustration during an already stressful situation. As a result, we have found maladministration, and an order of £400 compensation has been made.
Although the evidence shows that the landlord completed some repair work, the resident has told us that certain repairs remain outstanding. Therefore, we have issued a contact order requiring the landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether any further repair works are needed.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the drainage issues
Finding	Maladministration

On 25 September 2024, the resident reported a bathroom flood/blockage and said that human waste was coming up through his toilet bowl. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it should have attended within 4 hours. There is no evidence that it took any action, which is a failure.
The resident reported a further 3 incidents between 7 January 2025 and 24 April 2025. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord took the appropriate action on any of these occasions, which is a failure in line with its repair policy and a missed opportunity to investigate the root cause of the problem.
There is no documented evidence that the resident reported damage after any of the 4 flooding incidents. Despite this, he later stated in his formal complaint that the floods had caused repeated damage, particularly to his flooring. The landlord appropriately directed him to its insurance policy, as the damage to the flooring was not something it was required to repair.
The landlord’s repair logs said it would arrange for a surveyor to visit. However, due to poor record keeping, we cannot confirm if it did or what the survey showed. Its stage 1 response referred to a CCTV drainage survey, but there is no direct evidence this was carried out or that any work followed.
The landlord’s failure to investigate and resolve the drainage issue has left the resident vulnerable to further blockages and floods. We have therefore ordered the landlord to inspect the drainage system and confirm whether further works are needed to prevent future flooding and blockages.
We have also ordered the landlord to pay £200 in compensation, in line with our remedies guidance, to acknowledge its failure to fully investigate this issue.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 30 working days. The landlord has since updated its policy to mirror our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
We have not seen a copy of the resident’s original stage 1 complaint, which is a record keeping failure. Landlords are expected to keep full records of complaints, including the complaint itself and all correspondence.
We also have seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, as required by its policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided on 22 August 2025, 5 days beyond its 10-working-day timescale. The delay would have added to the resident’s frustration.
When the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 26 August 2025, the landlord acknowledged it the next day, which was in line with its policy.
The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 3 October 2025 on time, again in line with its policy.
Though the landlord responded in a timely way to the resident’s escalated complaint, it did not address its failure to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint or the lateness of its stage 1 response, and neither of its responses answered the resident’s concerns about the reported drainage issues.
This leads to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, and we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience its failures would have caused him.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair logs were often unclear about what work was completed under each repair heading. The landlord should reflect on how to ensure its records are accurate and detailed.

Communication

When multiple issues are raised in a complaint, the landlord should confirm in writing what it understands the complaint to be and how it will be handled. This reduces the risk of misunderstanding and provides a clear reference point for both parties. The landlord may wish to refer to the Code for guidance.