London Borough of Wandsworth (202336163)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak into her property from the flat above in October 2022 and continued to raise this in 2023 and 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord took consistent steps and followed recommendations to eliminate the cause of the leak. It recognised the distress and inconvenience the delay caused and went beyond its obligations to remedy this. However, it failed to recognise that it was responsible for some of the leaseholder’s internal repairs given the circumstances, though it ultimately covered the cost of these.
6. The landlord responded to the complaint within its policy timeframes. Its responses were reasonable and accurate.

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.

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. The resident referred to how her living conditions impacted her health and wellbeing. We do not doubt this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for the courts to deal with or as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency leaks within 1 day, repair minor leaks within 20 working days and do planned repairs within 60 working days. Where an emergency repair requires an inspection before raising further works, it will carry out the emergency repair, inspect and raise orders at the appropriate priority level. It says it will not raise repairs for internal elements of leasehold properties. The lease states the resident is responsible for the interior faces of the ceiling and walls.
9. In October 2022, the resident reported a water mark on her ceiling. The landlord attended the same day but could not gain access. Records show that it left a card. While proactive follow up would have been positive, the landlord did attend within its stated timescales. It was reasonable to await for further contact from the resident.
10. The resident did not report water ingress again until July 2023. The landlord attended within 20 working days but was unable to access the flat above. The resident said the flat was empty. The landlord confirmed there was an active tenancy, but it could not immediately force entry. When the resident reported continuous ingress 5 days later, the landlord attended within 24 hours with a plumber and locksmith to gain entry. This was an appropriate and prompt response. Around this time, it also took reasonable steps to repair a downpipe as the resident said a leak was impacting her living room wall.
11. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it was awaiting a report from its contractor and would raise any further works necessary. It advised her she could make a public liability insurance claim for any internal damage. This was proactive communication and it was appropriate to refer her to its insurance.
12. In August 2023, the resident reported the ceiling was caving in due to the leak. The landlord’s emergency out of hours service told her she was responsible for internal repairs. Although this aligned with the repairs policy wording and the lease, this advice was unreasonable given the leak originated from the landlord’s property. The lease states the resident is responsible for the interior face of the ceiling but the damage was caused by structural faults and the landlord therefore did not offer accurate advice to the resident.
13. When the resident called on the next working day, the landlord appropriately visited that same day and noted a constant drip. It believed this was from the drain in the balcony above. It advised the resident to make her ceiling safe and attended within 3 working days to clear the drain blockage at the balcony above. Although this timescale exceeded the emergency repairs target, the necessary inspection and specialist equipment means we have concluded that there was not an unreasonable delay at that point.
14. The resident raised a complaint in August 2023 which the landlord treated at its early resolution stage, saying this would help it resolve the issue faster. She explained she had not reported the damp further as the landlord had arranged major works to the building and she had believed this would resolve the problem. She reported exposed electrics and a hole in the ceiling that she could not repair due to the ongoing leak.
15. The landlord raised further repairs to the balcony and its drainage, completed them within its policy timeframes, and arranged a dye test. It then raised a CCTV inspection of the balcony. This demonstrated a resolution focused approach, following expert advice to identify the cause of the leak. It responded to the early resolution complaint within 7 working days, apologised for delays, and confirmed it would raise any necessary orders once it had the CCTV findings.
16. In September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to allow access to the flat above for a company assisting her with an insurance claim. The landlord asked that the company contact it directly before allowing access. This was reasonable. The resident cancelled the insurance survey as she was concerned the landlord had not guaranteed access.
17. The landlord received the CCTV report in September 2023 and raised a repair to remove a blockage and then carry out a further CCTV report. It apologised to the resident for the delay and confirmed the survey had shown a gap which it hoped to resolve by resin lining the balcony. It completed this the same month. This was a positive step and it was reasonable to action recommended work from the survey. It also offered the resident a commercial dehumidifier but advised the running costs for this would be more expensive. The resident confirmed she understood this.
18. In November 2023, the resident reported that the leak continued. The landlord arranged an inspection, though the resident felt this was ineffective as the inspector had no tools to measure damp. It said it was seeking further advice from a building surveyor and would inspect the exterior for possible causes of additional damp. It visited the same day, identified the need for external repointing, and confirmed it was following up on the balcony report. It also advised that it would re-seal the balcony. It did this work in early December 2023. These actions were reasonable while awaiting further expert guidance.
19. The landlord arranged a building inspector’s survey in November 2023 and raised further flood and dye tests to the balcony. It also ordered an additional CCTV inspection, given it had removed the previous blockage, which it completed within 2 weeks. This showed appropriate attempts to diagnose the cause of the ongoing leak. In December 2023, the landlord confirmed it would re-coat the balcony and asked the resident whether any dye had appeared internally. She reported ongoing damp and mould, and no visible dye. It was positive for the landlord to maintain communications with the resident as part of these investigations.
20. Although the landlord raised further CCTV drainage checks to rule out other causes, it did not maintain adequate communication with the resident in the interim. She raised a complaint in February 2024. In that month, the landlord erected scaffolding to the balcony above to ensure continuous access. This was a proactive step to eliminate delays in its visits to diagnose and complete repairs. It also received the CCTV report and arranged an urgent visit with the contractor and a senior staff member. This was reasonable and showed quick responsive action.
21. The landlord’s February 2024 stage 1 response accepted that, although it had continued to investigate the leak, the time taken to identify the cause was unacceptable. It said it had installed scaffolding to allow access, and it would carry out a further dye test. It offered £200 compensation for the delay. The resident escalated the complaint, stating the compensation did not reflect the length of the delay, the high cost of internal repairs, and the fact she felt ignored when requesting contact with senior managers.
22. In February 2024, the landlord met with its contractor and arranged for the balcony to be re‑asphalted. It completed this work in March 2024 as promised in its stage 2 response earlier that month. It advised the resident to pursue either buildings or liability insurance and offered to cover the cost of internal repairs and redecoration (if the resident obtained 3 quotes) and the dehumidifier running costs. It also clarified that senior staff had been involved throughout and increased the compensation to £300.
23. Though some of the repairs were ultimately the landlord’s responsibility anyway, it was resolution focussed for the landlord to cover the cost of all the internal repairs and redecorations. This cost £3,940. The offer to cover the cost of energy use and the £300 for distress and inconvenience was in line with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse impact. The landlord’s actions were therefore proportionate to put right those failings.
24. The landlord carried out a dye test in April 2024 to confirm the resurfacing had been effective and followed up with the resident in May 2024. This demonstrated strong oversight and proactive repair management beyond the end of the complaints process.
25. Overall, the landlord took proactive steps to investigate and resolve the leak between mid-2023 and early 2024. It largely maintained reasonable communication and generally met required timescales. The period the leak was ongoing understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience, but the landlord recognised this and awarded proportionate compensation. However, it failed to identify that it was responsible for some of the internal damage. Although it ultimately funded these repairs, it presented this as a goodwill gesture rather than an acceptance of responsibility. This is concerning and represents a service failure.
26. We have not ordered further compensation as the landlord put right the damage and took additional steps to remedy the decorations. We have ordered training on leasehold repairs and a review of the repairs policy.

27. Landlords must handle complaints as per their own policies and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The 2022 version of the Code contains guidance we expected landlords to follow at the time of the resident’s earlier complaint. Our 2024 version replaced this. Both versions of the Code say landlords should have a 2-stage complaint process and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s current policy is in line with this.
28. The landlord sent its stage 1 response within 8 working days of receiving the resident’s complaint. It appropriately acknowledged her previous complaint regarding the leak and provided a detailed history of the action it had taken. It offered an action plan going forwards and an apology for the delay. This was a reasonable response and in line with the Code.
29. The landlord sent the stage 2 response within 14 working days of the resident’s escalation request. This response recognised failings, offered a new action plan and showed consideration of how to put things right. This was an appropriate response in line with the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. This case shows the need for staff to understand repair obligations in leaseholder properties, especially when leaks arise from communal areas. Staff must give accurate advice from the outset and recognise when the landlord is responsible for internal damage. The case also highlights the value of maintaining clear tenancy records. Better information on the occupancy of the flat above could have enabled quicker access and reduced delays in resolving the leak.

Communication

31. Communication was generally timely, but the resident felt the tone lacked sensitivity at times. Staff should ensure updates are clear, empathetic, and acknowledge the resident’s concerns, especially during prolonged issues. Communication after the initial report could also have been stronger and earlier follow‑up may have reduced uncertainty and supported the resident more effectively.