Waltham Forest Council (202230787)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230787

Waltham Forest Council

15 August 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks into the resident’s property from a property above.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a block. The lease began in July 2022. The landlord has no registered vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to the neighbour in the property above as Neighbour A. Neighbour A is a tenant of the landlord.
On 7 November 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said that he had reported a leak coming through his bathroom ceiling to the landlord’s emergency repairs team. He was told by the landlord that it was his responsibility. He called out his own plumber who also visited neighbour A. His plumber confirmed that there was a leaking tap and overflow pipe in neighbour As property.
Neighbour A then called the landlord to report the leak. The repair had been pushed back by the landlord repeatedly. Several weeks later the resident returned to his property to find his bathroom floor covered in water which was coming in from the light fitting. The next day the resident discovered leaks in the hallway and second bedroom. He contacted the landlord’s repairs team and was advised again that as he was a leaseholder it could not assist. The resident provided details of the damage with photographs.
The landlord responded on 7 December 2022. It apologised for sending its complaint response late. It said the repair was raised on 27 October 2022 and were scheduled to be completed on the same day. Due to an emergency on another site, it was unable to attend. The works were then postponed until 18 November 2022. It said the leak had now ceased and the repairs had been completed. It would arrange for a surveyor to attend to carry out a damp meter reading. It offered £400 compensation. £300 inconvenience and £100 time and trouble.
On 31 December 2022, the resident requested that the complaint was escalated to stage 2. He said the leak had caused substantial damage. He had been offered £400 compensation and a visit from someone to measure damp levels. He had accepted this proposal but had not received any contact since. He rejected the offer of compensation. He said the delays were causing further damage to his property.
The landlord responded on 1 February 2023. It said that the leak was due to issues in the bathroom in neighbour A’s flat. It attended on 27 January 2023 and completed the required works. It said that it had increased the compensation by £100 in recognition of the delays. It had arranged to complete a damp reading on 1 February 2023. It upheld the complaint and apologised for its poor level of service. It offered £500 compensation broken down as follows:
1. £100 delays
2. £300 distress and inconvenience
3. £100 time and trouble

Post complaint.

The resident informed this Service that the leak had stopped on 27 January 2023. The landlord advised this Service that its stage 2 response was incorrect, and the leak had been fixed on 27 October 2022.
The resident reported a further leak on 3 June 2023 which he believed was coming from a different flat in the block. The landlord advised this Service the second leak was a communal leak which was complex. In July 2024 it informed this Service that it had resolved the communal leak.

Assessment and findings

The lease states that the landlord will keep in good repair the main structure of the block including all exterior and all walls dividing the flats from other flats. It excludes the internal plaster and electrical and other fittings inside any individual flat for which it states the owner is responsible for.
The landlord’s repair policy reiterates that leaseholders are responsible for repairs within their own property. It also states that it will respond to emergency repairs such as floods within 2 hours. It will respond to urgent repairs such as leaking pipes and partial loss of water within 5 calendar days. All other repairs which do not fall within the emergency or urgent categories will be responded to within 21 calendar days.
The compensation policy says that it does not apply to disputes about matters covered by the landlord insurance policies. It says that in deciding whether to award compensation, the landlord must consider whether the complainant has suffered injustice because of the maladministration or fault.
The landlord will award time and trouble payments when the complainant had spent time and effort pursuing the complaint. Time and trouble payments are not the same as distress caused by the landlord’s actions. It says that remedy payments for distress and for time and trouble are between £100 and £300. The policy also says that all parts of a compensation award should be cumulative.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the return of the leak after completion of the complaint process is frustrating; but given that the cause has been identified as a separate issue than that which was rectified, the landlord must be given the opportunity to respond to the resident’s additional concerns.
This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which in his opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’.
It is noted that the landlord has not been given the opportunity to formally consider its subsequent response to the resident’s further reports of a communal leak, including whether further compensation is necessary. As such, the issues reported following the landlord’s final response will not be considered as part of this complaint, but a recommendation will be made for the landlord to do so.
The resident states he reported the leak to the landlord himself on 2 occasions. The landlord informed the resident that as he was a leaseholder it was unable to respond. The repair policy says that generally, leaseholders are responsible for repairs inside their home (except in the case of insured risks) and the landlord is responsible for communal and external repairs.
It is unknown what information the landlord obtained about the leak when it was reported by the resident and that the repair is one that it is not responsible for and that there are no health and safety risks. The evidence does not show that the landlord did this.
In addition to this the property above (neighbour A) was a tenant for which it did have a repair responsibility. The landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s initial reports was a failing and a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. This failing has not been addressed within the landlord’s complaint responses. To put matters right this Service has considered this in the order made below.
The resident did instruct his own plumber who determined the leak was coming from the flat above. This Service has not been provided any evidence to show when neighbour A first reported the leak, but the landlord advised that it was first reported on 29 September 2022. It said neighbour A reported that when she was having a shower the resident was experiencing a leak from her bathroom.
The resident states in his stage 1 complaint which was received by the landlord on 7 November 2022 that as an outcome he wanted the leak fixed. The landlord said in December 2022 within its stage 1 response that the leak had been fixed. In its stage 2 response dated 1 February 2023 it said the leak was fixed on 27 January 2023. The landlord then informed this Service that its complaint response was incorrect, and the leak was fixed on 27 October 2022. It provided evidence to support this. When this Service spoke to the resident, he advised that he thought that the leak was fixed in January 2023.
The resident’s stage 1 request stated that the repair to fix the leak kept being put back. The landlord agreed with this within its stage 1 response. It said that its contractors were required on another job on 27 October 2022 so were unable to attend on that day. It said that the job had been re-scheduled for 18 November 2022. It said the leak had now ceased and the repairs completed. The landlord’s version that the repairs were completed on 27 October does not therefore correspond with the resident’s recollection or the landlord’s complaint responses.
The landlord’s records are confusing and as a result this Service is unable to accurately assess when the leak was first reported and when it was fixed. Record keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations, furthermore it enables the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The records also fail to show how it communicated with the resident which means that this service cannot fully assess the landlord’s handling of the leak. This is a further failing in its record keeping and has caused the resident further time and inconvenience in having to pursue his matter further.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The record keeping failings have been considered in the order below.
The landlord correctly directed the resident to its insurance provider in respect of the damage to his property. This is in accordance with its complaint and compensation policy. It is acknowledged that the resident has expressed difficulties in communicating with the insurance company. This is not however within this Service’s remit to assess. Complaints about the service provided by the insurance company will need to be escalated directly with the insurance provider.
The landlord also agreed to attend to take damp meter readings which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord did consider how it could put matters right. It offered £500 compensation in its stage 2 response. This was in accordance with the failures it identified within both complaint responses. This being that the repair was not completed in a timely manner. Then it acknowledged within its stage 2 response that there were delays in paying the compensation and completing the damp reading.
The amount however does not fully reflect the further failings identified by this Service and the detriment caused. This being its missed opportunity twice to assess whether it had a repair responsibility when the resident raised the issues. This caused the resident time and effort having to find his own contractor to attend. The resident then had to liaise with neighbour A in order to get the landlord to respond. It also demonstrates a wider concern about the information and training that call handlers are given in regard to leaseholder repairs. In addition, the landlord’s record keeping was poor which made it difficult for this Service to accurately assess its handling of the matter.
The resident had experienced distress, time and trouble having to raise a complaint to ascertain when the leak would be repaired. He had to live with the uncertainty of when it would be fixed. He was unable to remedy any damage until the landlord had resolved the leak. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it kept the resident informed or explained any delays prior to the complaint being raised. This Service considers the failings amount to maladministration. An order has therefore been made below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint procedure at the time of the complaint stated that it aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and to stage 2 within 25 working days. The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord’s should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord has since updated its policy to ensure its timescales now meet the requirements of the Code.
The resident raised his complaint on 7 November 2022 and the landlord responded 23 working days later on 7 December 2022. This was not in accordance with the Code or its own complaint policy at the time. The landlord did however acknowledge its delay and apologised within its stage 1 response.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident. In particular the resident’s concerns that he had reported the leak twice himself but had been told there was nothing the landlord could do. This was a failing but also a missed opportunity to put matters right at an earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident time and effort having to pursue his complaint further.
The stage 1 complaint response did explain why there was a delay when neighbour A reported the repair. It said that the repair had been postponed until 18 November 2022. It stated that the leak had been fixed and the necessary repairs had been completed. The response lacked clarity about what action it had taken and when which was confusing.
The stage 1 complaint response failed to show any learning. It was also silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, without receiving a detailed response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response then caused further confusion as it stated the leak was fixed on 27 January 2023. This contradicted its finding in its stage 1 response that the leak was resolved. This would have caused further confusion for the resident. It did however detail what had caused the leak and what works it had completed to remedy the matter. It addressed the resident’s concerns about damage to his belongings and appropriately referred him to make a claim against its insurance.
It acknowledged its further delays in issuing the compensation and attending to measure the damp levels. It increased its offer of compensation in recognition of this which was appropriate.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The complaint responses contained inaccurate information and lacked clarity which demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The landlord also failed to show any learning from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks into the resident’s property from a property above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £800. £500 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from the total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leaks into the resident’s property from the property above.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of this case to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
1. How it responds when leaseholders report repairs. This should include how it assesses potential health and safety issues and whether it has any responsibility to complete the repair.
2. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store the works information accurately.
3. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication.
4. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord open a new stage 1 complaint to investigate its handling of the communal leak. It should consider whether compensation is appropriate for any failings it identifies.