London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202348525)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with his family. At the time of the complaint, his wife was pregnant.   In January 2024, the resident reported a leak to the landlord. He said the leak came from a neighbouring flat above his property. The leak and associated remedial works were resolved in July 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. A leak into the resident’s property from a neighbouring property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors of the landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property from a neighbouring property.
4. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in its handling of the leak into the resident’s property and offered the resident proportionate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
6. The landlord acknowledged there were errors in its complaint handling when it provided its responses during its complaints process and offered the resident proportionate compensation to recognise the complaint handling errors.

.

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.

Recommendations

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

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. On 30 January 2024, the resident reported a leak into his property from the flat above. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend the neighbouring property on 21 February 2024 to trace the source of the leak. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, which sets a timescale of 20 working days for routine repairs.
8. During the visit, the contractor identified that the leak originated from the neighbouring property’s boiler and was affecting the resident’s property. As the neighbouring property was a leasehold property, the responsibility for repairing the boiler and stopping the leak rested with the leaseholder. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, which states that leaseholders are responsible for repairs to internal building components and all services within their property, including pipework.

9. There was a delay in the neighbour completing repairs to the boiler to stop the leak. In response, the landlord wrote to the neighbouring leaseholder in early March 2024. It reminded them of their repair obligations and asked them to repair the boiler and resolve the leak without delay. This was an appropriate step. However, the landlord failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repairs.
10. Due to the ongoing leak and lack of communication from the landlord, the resident made a complaint on 25 March 2024. On 26 March 2024, the neighbouring leaseholder informed the landlord that they had completed a temporary repair to stop the leak. They also confirmed that they had arranged for a new boiler to be installed within the following week. The landlord did not inform the resident of this update until it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 April 2024. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide this information to the resident sooner.
11. The landlord also confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that once their neighbour had installed the new boiler it would carry out the required remedial works at the resident’s property. However, there was a delay in the landlord arranging and completing the remedial works and as a result the resident asked his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The delay and lack of communication by the landlord was unreasonable.
12. The landlord completed the remedial works in July 2024. These works included plastering, decorating, and repairs to the kitchen units. During the same month, the landlord provided the resident with dehumidifiers to help dry the property following the leak. There was a delay in delivering the dehumidifiers due to access issues. This would have been outside of the landlord’s control.
13. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that there had been delays in its handling of the leak into the resident’s property. It offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. The landlord also confirmed that it had ordered a replacement wall unit for the resident’s property. It said it would contact the resident to arrange an appointment once the unit was available. The landlord installed the wall unit as planned in August 2024.
14. The landlord also acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident requested to move property due to the current property being too small and having recurring repair issues. It explained that the resident had been assigned band 3 for rehousing. It also stated that it could reassess this banding, as the resident had informed it that his wife was pregnant.
15. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about his request to move and his allocated banding. However, 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 the activity relates to a move request and housing allocations banding awarded by the council. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the resident’s move request and housing allocations banding. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
16. It is evident that there were delays and limited communication from the landlord in its handling of the leak into the resident’s property. However, the landlord acknowledged there were communication errors and offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise these errors. The landlord’s offer was proportionate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors. It was also fair and consistent with our compensation guidance, which is available on our website and recommends awards of up to £600 where failings had no permanent impact on the resident.

17. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy are the same as the timescales referenced in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints processes. The Code states a stage 1 response must be sent within 10 working days from the complaint being logged, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It also states a landlord must also address all points raised in a resident’s complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
18. The resident submitted his initial complaint to the landlord on 25 March 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 8 April 2024. The response was on time and within the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the resident’s complaint point about his request to move property. The landlord acknowledged this error, which was a positive step.

19. On 20 May 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 July 2024. The response was approximately 22 working days late and outside the 20 working days timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
20. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that there had been complaint handling errors, and it offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise these errors. The overall compensation offered for complaint handling-delays was fair and consistent with our compensation guidance and proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

22. There was very limited communication from the landlord to the resident when he initially reported the leak. The landlord may wish to review this and consider how it may improve communication with residents in the future.