Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Oxford City Council (202345407)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345407

Oxford City Council

10 January 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Leaks within the property.
    2. Damp and mould within the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat owned by the landlord. The landlord is aware the resident has several medical issues including mental health and respiratory problems.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 June 2023. She explained that she had reported a leak from the property above to it in March 2023 and her property remained damp. She also referenced a leaking waste pipe and water ingress from an external canopy.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 11 July 2023. It confirmed the resident had made a claim on the buildings insurance for the damage caused by the leak from above. It said it would work with the insurer to address any remedial work that was its responsibility under the lease. It identified delays addressing the water ingress from the canopy and leaking waste pipe. It offered the resident £200 compensation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 26 January 2024. She explained that her health had worsened after the leak. She felt the landlord had not addressed this within its complaint response. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the landlord to compensate her and restore the property to its pre-loss condition.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 March 2024. It set out that the resident had received a cash settlement from the insurer of £11,058.19 to remedy the damage caused by 2 instances of water ingress, the leak from the property above and the external canopy. It said it would not contribute to the resident’s claim for repairs, and it had seen no evidence that the leak impacted her health. It explained its compensation offer of £200 remained outstanding in recognition of the delays identified within its stage 1 response.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident was concerned about the impact the living conditions had on her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, the court can examine oral testimony. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident, her complaint about the impact to her health is better dealt with via the court.
  2. Within the resident’s correspondence, she referenced damage and repairs that formed part of her insurance claims. She expressed dissatisfaction with how the insurer handled matters, including timeliness, communication, the amount offered in settlement and a missed contractor appointment. Paragraph 41.b. of the Scheme states that we cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. The insurer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, we cannot consider complaints about it or its appointed agents, including its loss adjuster and contractors. The independent complaint handling body for complaints about insurers is the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Leaks within the property

  1. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  3. Once on notice of a repair, a landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the lease and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  4. The landlord’s repairs webpage sets out that it classifies repairs in 3 categories – emergency, urgent, and routine. It aims to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and routine repairs with 28 working days or scheduled into a planned programme of works. It gives a water leak as an example of an emergency repair and a leaking waste pipe as an example of an urgent repair.
  5. The landlord’s leaseholder webpage sets out that leaseholders are responsible for some repairs within their home, including plumbing problems. It explains it is responsible for shared areas, shared services, and the structure and exterior of the building.
  6. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it referred to the resident initially reporting a canopy leak in March 2023. However, the repair records provided to this Service references a report of water leaking from a canopy in November 2022, which it marked as complete in February 2023. It is unclear if the matter reported in March 2023 was a new issue or a continuation of the previously reported problem.
  7. After the resident raised a request for repair in March 2023, records show the landlord resolved the canopy leak in July 2023. The Ombudsman finds that it did not act in accordance with its repair timescale here, and there was an avoidable delay in remedying the issue. It is evident from its contact history that she spent time chasing it for a resolution and was frustrated with the lack of action. While the remedial works were settled as part of an insurance claim, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised its failings, apologised and offered compensation to put things right within its complaint response. This has been addressed further below.
  8. In March 2023, the landlord’s records show the resident reported a leak from a waste pipe. From the limited information available, it is unclear whether it was a communal pipe or one she was responsible for under the terms of her lease. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to establish this from the outset and advise her accordingly.
  9. Records show the landlord attended on 4 July 2023 and was unable to locate a leak. Additionally, a plumbing team leader attended on 14 July 2023 and the resident informed them that there were no further leaks from the pipe. As such, it acted reasonably by closing the work order. From the limited information available, the extent and duration of the leak is unclear. However, it is evident it delayed responding to the resident following her initial report, which it identified and apologised for within its complaint response.
  10. The Ombudsman notes that it can take more than one attempt to resolve a leak. It can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue at the outset, especially in blocks of flats where multiple properties may be involved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure. In this case, the resident reported a leak from the property above in April 2023. Records demonstrate that the landlord promptly attended following the initial repair request. The contractor reported to it that “there were no visible leaks, all dry.” A landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors.
  11. Following a second report of a leak from above on 15 May 2023, the landlord evidenced that it raised an emergency work order to attend both properties. This was appropriate in the circumstances. Its records show contractors stopped the leak on 22 May 2023 after gaining access, removing a cylinder, and tracing pipework through a concrete floor. The Ombudsman finds it took the resident’s report of an ongoing leak seriously and managed it with a sense of urgency to identify and remedy the problem. We are aware this took longer than the emergency response time it aimed for, however, considering the location and nature of the leak, we do not find this delay to be excessive or unreasonable.
  12. After the landlord stopped the leak, it referred the resident to the buildings insurer to make a claim for the subsequent damage. The purpose of insurance is to indemnify the policyholder or beneficiary of the policy for damage caused by insured perils, such as an escape of water. In the circumstances, it was entirely appropriate for it to direct her to make an insurance claim. It also provided a link to its website which contained instructions on how to make a claim and details about the policy. The Ombudsman concludes it communicated effectively here.
  13. Within the landlord’s complaint response, it identified and reflected on its shortcomings when managing the resident’s requests for repair as identified above. As mentioned above, it appropriately recognised the impact on her and apologised for the delays. Our remedies guidance suggests an award in the range of £100 to £600 for failings which adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact. Considering the issues identified, the Ombudsman determines that the £200 compensation offered by it was proportionate in the circumstances.

Damp and mould

  1. Following a resident’s report of damp and mould within a property, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
  2. Once the leak from the property above had stopped and the insurance claim was progressing, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to conduct a damp and mould assessment. This was appropriate in the circumstances as it was important for it to determine whether there were any structural issues causing damp which it was responsible for under the terms of the lease.
  3. Records show the survey took place on 23 October 2023 and the landlord provided a copy to this Service. The surveyor advised that following the leak from above, works had been undertaken to remove electrics, and wall and floor coverings to aid the drying out process. It noted the insurer was managing the reinstatement of the property, and the surveyor did not identify any damp caused by building defects. The Ombudsman finds it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its surveyor and to clearly set out its position to the resident in a timely manner. However, the Ombudsman notes that the survey report is brief and does not contain moisture readings or photos of the areas affected. A recommendation has been made in this regard.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks within the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £200 it previously offered within its final complaint response, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure. The reasonable redress finding is made on this basis.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends that when arranging damp and mould inspections, the landlord ensures its surveyors include more information on their reports, such as moisture readings, concise details of the areas examined, and photographs.