London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202419538)

Decision
Case ID	202419538
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	18 November 2025

Background

1. The resident’s daughter raised the complaint as his representative. She cares for the vulnerable resident and 2 other vulnerable relatives in the ground floor flat. In December 2023, she reported a leak from a leaseholder-owned flat on the second floor. She complained that the landlord took too long to get the second floor flat’s owner to repair the leak and did not consider the effect on her vulnerable household’s health. For this report, we will refer to the resident and her daughter as ‘the resident’, unless we need to mention them separately. The owner of the second floor flat where the leak came from is referred to as the ‘the leaseholder’.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a leak.
5. We found reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord failed to consider the vulnerabilities in the resident’s family.
   2. The repairs to fix the leak took too long to be completed, which left the resident’s family without overhead lighting in 3 rooms and with damp conditions.
   3. The landlord failed to use enforcement tools available to it under the resident’s lease agreement to make sure the leak was fixed in a timely manner.
   4. There was no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated, which resulted in further time and trouble for the resident.
   5. The landlord admitted a complaint handling failing for its late stage 2 response and offered £250 compensation, which was reasonable.

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 19 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £550 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of a leak. This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 December 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident £250 as offered within the stage 2 complaints process for a complaint handling failure.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 December 2023	The resident reported a leak to the landlord and it was traced to a second floor flat owned by a leaseholder. The landlord inspected the flat and identified various repairs were needed. It recommended that the leaseholder get a plumber and complete the works required.
17 January 2024	The landlord told the leaseholder that evidence of the completion of works was required by 12pm on 23 January 2024 or enforcement action would be considered.
22 January 2024	The resident raised a complaint, she said: there was an active leak from the second floor flat and in December 2023 it affected the electrics and led to a lack of working lights in the bathroom, kitchen, and hallway builders attended her property to fix the issue, however the walls and electric wires were wet and found unsafe the lack of lighting and the hanging wires in the property were a health and safety risk the household had elderly and vulnerable adults and the mould and damp was a risk to their health
5 February 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: on 1 December 2023, a contractor attended and identified a leak in the second floor flat, the leaseholder carried out the identified repairs on 26 January 2024, a contractor identified a second leak so the leaseholder was again asked to carry out further repairs the landlord agreed to investigate other possible sources of the leak including the roof and stack pipes the contractor would inspect the resident’s flat, and the leaseholder’s flat where the suspected leak was from, on the same date (9 February 2024)
19 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: she was frustrated by the lack of support from the landlord for the ongoing leak the landlord said evidence confirmed the repairs were completed, but had scheduled another visit to the leaseholder’s flat in late March 2024, which suggested the leak remained the household was living in damp conditions and she repeated her concerns about their vulnerabilities there was still no lighting in the hallway and the insurance company was unable to complete repairs until the leak was fixed
22 April 2024	The resident chased the landlord for an update to allow her to progress her repairs. She again asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
1 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said: on 15 May 2024, an inspection took place and found that the work carried out previously was faulty it acted, in line with its leak process, to make sure the leaseholder completed the repairs required to fix the leak the work was completed on 2 July 2024 and post inspected any further works needed inside the resident’s home, after the repair of the leak, should be claimed from the resident’s buildings and contents insurance it apologised for the delay to the complaint response and offered £250 compensation
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she said she reported the issue in December 2023 and repeatedly told the landlord that the leak continued. However, she said the landlord ignored her concerns, insisted it was fixed, and failed to act promptly or effectively. She explained that caring for 3 vulnerable adults while dealing with poor living conditions and disputes with the landlord affected her mental health.

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 landlords handling of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. The resident explained that the leak and its timeframe significantly affected her and her family’s mental health and medical conditions. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The resident reported a leak on 1 December 2023, which resulted in a power cut and a loss of lights in her bedroom, bathroom, and hallway. While the evidence does not give the date, the landlord completed an inspection in early January 2024 and traced the leak to a second floor flat owned by a leaseholder. The landlord explained the repairs needed and recommended the leaseholder get a plumber. The landlord acted in a timely manner to trace the leak and it was right and reasonable of the landlord to contact the leaseholder in support of a solution for the resident.
9. This is because the resident’s lease agreement and the landlord’s information for leaseholders made it responsible for repairing the structure and shared services and services to flats in the block. It can also take action to make leaseholders do repairs inside their flats, if there is danger or damage to other residents or the block, or enter to do repairs itself. It may also have been reasonable for it to have taken the landlord around a month do this at the start of the resident’s case because investigating and taking action for leaks between flats on different floors can be complicated and take a long time.
10. On 17 January 2024, the landlord emailed the leaseholder and asked them to provide evidence by 23 January 2024 that the works needed to fix the leak were completed, or it would consider enforcement action. It is not clear if the leaseholder provided the evidence the landlord required, nonetheless the landlord’s inspection on 8 February 2024 confirmed that the works were still faulty.
11. The landlord said it would inspect the resident’s property on 9 February 2024, however on 8 February 2024 it reported that access was not provided. The miscommunication about the inspection date resulted in a lack of access and a missed opportunity to assess the effect the leak was having on the resident’s family and the property.
12. Further, the landlord was told that the electrics in the resident’s flat were unsafe because of the leak. While the landlord was not responsible for fixing the internal electrics under her lease agreement, there is no evidence that the landlord acted on the information about a possibly hazardous situation. The landlord had overall responsibility for the block under the lease and should have considered getting an electrician to assess the overall safety, with all the resident’s family and the block in mind. Further, it could have assessed the damage in the resident’s property, which would have gone some way to reassure her that her concerns were being taken seriously.
13. There was nothing in the landlord’s evidence to provide any information or context to explain what actions it took between its inspection on 8 February 2024 to 15 May 2024, when a further inspection found that the repairs remained faulty. The landlord has provided no explanation for this delay. In the absence of any explanation, this was unreasonable.
14. Again, the landlord has not provided any details to explain what actions it took following the May 2024 inspection until a further inspection took place on or around 2 July 2024, when works were confirmed as having been completed. The resident’s family had now experienced an active leak for 6 months. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively tried to update the resident about the steps it was taking to fix the leaks. This was not reasonable and was likely to have caused the resident further inconvenience, time, and trouble in getting updates.
15. The resident said that she consistently reported to the landlord that the leak remained active, however she was told that the leak had been fixed. The evidence suggests that the landlord completed 3 visits to inspect the repair in January, February, and May 2024, and each time confirmed that the works remained faulty. A further inspection took place in July 2024, when the landlord confirmed that works were now satisfactory. It is reasonable to find that the leak remained active for 6 months and left the resident’s flat with outstanding repairs, which she explained caused distress, upset, and frustration.
16. The lease agreement makes it clear that, once the landlord identifies that a leaseholder is responsible for the leak, it should follow its process to make sure that the leaseholder meets their obligations. As the landlord is the freeholder with an overall responsibility for the block and to protect the interest of its residents, considering the length of time the leak remained active, it should have considered the enforcement options available to it under the lease agreement. The landlord’s lack of action was unreasonable.
17. It is clear the landlord was told that the property’s conditions adversely affected the resident’s family, who were elderly and vulnerable. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or addressed these concerns. Nor did it assess the situation by inspecting the property or trying to make sure the leaseholder completed the repairs in a timely manner. The landlord’s lack of empathy and concern for the vulnerable resident’s family living in a high risk situation likely caused further distress and upset.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response advised the resident to claim on her contents insurance for any damage caused to the property. It was reasonable of the landlord to have provided this information. This is because the resident’s lease agreement made her responsible for insuring and repairing the inside of the property.
19. Overall, the resident’s family lived with an active leak from December 2023 to July 2024. The leak caused water damage to walls, electrical faults, and reportedly unsafe living conditions. While the landlord initially took reasonable steps to identify the source of the leak, it failed to consider the vulnerability of the resident’s family or use the enforcement tools available to make sure adequate repairs were completed by the leaseholder in a timely manner.
20. The failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp amount to maladministration. Our remedies guidance suggests that compensation is appropriate where there has been a failure, which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no offer to put things right.
21. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should apologise and pay the resident a total of £550 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of a leak. This is in line with the remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for when such failures adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

22. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord’s current complaints policy and procedure’s timeframes are in line with the Code.
23. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 22 January 2024, the landlord provided its complaint acknowledgement on 25 January 2024, and it provided its stage 1 response on 5 February 2024. This was within the Code’s 5 and 10-working-day timeframes, respectively.
24. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 March 2024, and again on 22 April 2024. It was not until the resident raised the second request that the landlord acknowledged it and responded appropriately. This should not have been necessary and was unreasonable.
25. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 24 April 2024 and provided its stage 2 response on 1 August 2024. The landlord took 26 working days to acknowledge the complaint and 70 working days from the acknowledgement to provide a stage 2 response. Both the landlord’s acknowledgement and response were significantly late and therefore not in line with the Code or its policy and procedure.
26. The landlord admitted a complaint handling failing for the late stage 2 response and offered £250 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, it our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
27. The landlord’s apologies and compensation showed a good application of our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It acknowledged that its complaint handling had fallen below its expected standards and offered the resident appropriate redress for this. This is because its offer was in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures adversely affecting the resident. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate for the landlord’s complaint handling. A recommendation has been made to for it to pay the compensation offered in the stage 2 complaint response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process, which suggests a record keeping failing. It did not provide its stage 2 complaint acknowledgement or response in line with the Code’s or its policy and procedure’s timescales.

Communication

29. The landlord provided limited evidence of communications with the resident. We did not see evidence of unanswered communications. However, we identified failings because it did not communicate proactively. This related to providing information about the active leak and what action was being taken to resolve it.