Wandsworth Council (202208283)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208283

Wandsworth Council

11 October 2023

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 leaseholder 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 management and handling of:
1. Reports of water ingress into the property.
2. A request for compensation for personal losses
3. The leaseholder’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The leaseholder has detailed a number of losses which he advised were not covered by the landlord’s insurance company, amounting to £85,800 plus “personal distress of dealing with this year after year for 13 years.” The leaseholder has referred to:
1. Losing enjoyment of the property.
2. Subtenants leaving the property empty.
3. A rejected repair claim from the insurance company in 2017.
4. Cleaning costs after each leak.
5. Paying letting agent fees to re-let the property each time a tenant moved out.
6. Lost rent when the property was empty between lettings.
There may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of inconvenience caused, however, whilst this service has a wide range of discretion to suggest remedies, there are some remedies that this service would not provide. This service does not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence and liability and cannot make the same findings that a court would in relation to personal losses and/or payment of damages.
This service cannot review how the insurers have dealt with the claim(s) or assessed loss or awarded damages. This service has previously advised that if the leaseholder remains unhappy with the insurer’s decisions, he may wish to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
Consequently, this service considers the leaseholder’s request for compensation due to personal losses to be outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. The leaseholder’s remaining complaint about the landlord’s management and handling of reports of water ingress into the property and the associated complaint are investigated below.

Background

The leaseholder owns a 1-bedroom ground floor property in a 3-floor purpose built residential housing block under a 125-year lease that was granted by the landlord in October 1983.
The leaseholder sublets the property to tenants in exchange for the payment of rent.
The previous requirement for complaints to be sent to a designated person under a democratic filter was removed from the Housing Ombudsman Scheme on 1 October 2022.
The leaseholder raised 4 complaints with the landlord related to its handling of leaks into the property from 2 different neighbouring properties, 2 of which exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord issued its final responses to these 2 complaints on 11 November 2022 and 16 January 2023. As the complaints relate to water ingress into the leaseholder’s property, albeit at different times, this service considers the matters can be fully addressed within 1 complaint investigation. For the purposes of this report the different complaint responses are referred to as complaint (1), (2), (3) and (4) where they are referenced.
Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”.
This service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation. It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Relevant policies and procedures

Schedule 5 of the occupancy lease says the landlord is responsible for:
1. A policy of insurance with the interest of the lessee and whenever required produce to the lessee the policy or policies of such insurance in the event of any part of the block including common parts being destroyed or damaged by fire or other calamity as soon as reasonably practicable.
2. The repair and maintenance of the exterior of the block, entrance ways, drains, watercourses, water pipes, gutters, downpipes.
3. To rebuild or reinstate the block in the event that it shall be destroyed or damaged by any of the events normally covered by a comprehensive policy of insurance.
The landlord’s repairs procedure says:
1. The Council is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of tenants’ homes and has to keep the installations in the property for gas, electricity, water supplies, heating, and hot water, in good repair and working order.
2. The Council is only responsible for undertaking internal repairs in tenanted properties and should not raise internal repair orders for leasehold properties.
3. Some repairs will be covered by insurance, and it is important to know what repairs are covered by the Council’s buildings insurance.
4. Damage caused by escape of water can be raised under insurance.
5. Emergency repairs with be completed within 24 hours.
6. Urgent will be completed within 7 working days.
7. Non-urgent will be completed within 20 working days.
8. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will normally only consider complaints about things which happened in the past 12 months. It also says it will acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days at stage 1 and 25 working days at stage 2.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says as a condition of the scheme a member must:
1. Establish and maintain a complaint procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman including the Complaint Handling Code.
2. As part of that procedure, inform residents of their right to bring complaints to the Ombudsman under the scheme.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code says:
1. A landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
2. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt.
3. Landlords must respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and within 20 working days of a stage 2 complaint being logged.
4. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
5. Landlord’s must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 1 and 2 in clear plain language:
  1. The complaint stage.
  2. The complaint definition.
  3. The decision of the complaint.
  4. The reasons for any decisions made.
  5. Details of how to escalate the matter if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
6. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

Between 2009 and 2016 the leaseholder reported 11 leaks to the landlord which came from 2 neighbouring properties. The leaseholder subsequently made 14 insurance claims for property damage. The causes of water ingress in the above property related to boiler, bathroom and radiator repairs and damaged white goods.
The landlord’s insurance company registered 2 claims on 7 November 2016 and 6 November 2017 related to a leak that came the from property next door to the leaseholder’s property. The insurance company visited the leaseholder’s property and settled the claim.
During 2020 the leaseholder reported further leaks into the property from the property above on 30 March 2020, 7 and 30 May 2020, and 9 and 16 June 2020. The landlord identified and repaired leaks from faulty boiler pipework, faulty kitchen sink sealant and damaged white goods in the above property. It also identified a defrosted freezer had been the cause of one of the leaks.
The leaseholder submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 5 June 2020. The leaseholder said:
1. He had made 11 insurance claims for water leaks from the property above.
2. This did not include another 20 leaks that he did not claim for over the previous 10 years.
3. This was at an unacceptable level.
4. He did not feel that the resident in the above property was capable of managing himself.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 8 June 2020 to explain he had sent his complaint to the incorrect staff team, but this had been forwarded for a response to be issued. The leaseholder replied the same day stating his complaint was about the landlord’s (undisclosed) report which had no outcomes or resolutions.
The leaseholder reported a further leak into the property on 8 June 2020 stating it was the second leak in 3 weeks. The leaseholder requested this was added to his complaint. The landlord visited the property above on the same day and identified that the cause of the leak related to the washing machine. The landlord notes said, “no sealant on the kitchen sink, a faulty dishwasher.”
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 15 June 2020 and asked the landlord to check the above bathroom as extensive leaking damage was affecting the bathroom.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 25 June 2020 stating that a plumber had visited the address above and located a leak on the boiler condenser pipe and a leak from the resident’s dishwasher. The landlord advised the leaseholder to contact the insurance company that would request a report from the landlord for the insurance claim.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 20 July 2020 to enquire to whom his complaint was assigned. The landlord replied later the same day and provided a named staff member and said if a written response was required it would be provided within 10 working days.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 23 July 2020 stating all repairs to internal plumbing in the property above had been completed to a satisfactory standard and a referral to social services had been made related to the resident.
The leaseholder sent an email to the landlord on 27 July 2020 requesting his complaint be moved to the next stage of the complaint procedure. The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 28 July 2020 saying that a response to his complaint had been issued on 25 June 2020. The landlord asked the leaseholder to clarify what aspects of his complaint were outstanding.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 29 July 2020 stating that the previous response did not address the 11 insurance claims and an additional 20 leaks he had experienced over a 10-year period. The landlord replied to the leaseholder the same day confirming the matter would be logged and a written response would be issued within 10 working days.
The leaseholder reported another leak into the property from the property above to the landlord on 8 October 2020. The landlord visited the property above on the same day, but no water ingress was identified. The resident in the flat above had agreed to monitor the matter and arrange for a plumber to attend.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 6 November 2020 to confirm that its contractor had not located any leaks in the property above during its inspection but would need to assess the next-door property to check the mains water pipe for leaks.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 11 November 2020 to advise that it had had difficulties gaining access into the property next door and had left a calling card.
The landlord sent an internal email on 11 November 2020 stating it made contact with the leaseholder’s next-door neighbour and provided them with the contact details of a drain specialist for them to arrange an appointment to inspect the property for leaks.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder on 25 November 2020 and confirmed it had accessed the property above but found no leak or damp issues. It suggested a visit to the leaseholder’s address to check under the bath was required. The landlord’s drain specialist subsequently emailed the landlord on 1 December 2020 to confirm it had attended the leaseholder’s property and identified a leak under the bath.
The landlord visited the property above on 15 July 2021 and 16 July 2021 for an undisclosed reason but was unable to gain access and so left a calling card at the address.
The resident in the property above was found deceased in the property on an undisclosed date in July 2021.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 19 July 2021 to report a leak into the property from the property above. He said that the property above had been padlocked since 15 July 2021 when the emergency services visited the address. The emergency services could not access the property when they had attended again on 18 July 2021 during which the leak had spread from the bathroom to the whole property.
The landlord identified a faulty valve on the washing machine which was addressed by the occupants in the property on 19 July 2021. The landlord subsequently emailed the leaseholder on 20 July 2021 to state that it had held a conversation with the family of the deceased resident and identified a leak related to the washing machine hose. The landlord provided the leaseholder with an insurance claim form.
The leaseholder reported a leak into the property on 20 April 2022. The landlord attended and identified that the leak was caused by a leaking washing machine hosepipe. The occupants were advised not to use the machine. The landlord sent internal emails on 20 April 2022 confirming it could not access the property above the leaseholder to assess his report of water ingress into the kitchen and bathroom.
The leaseholder reported that the water ingress into the leaseholder’s property had worsened on 21 April 2022. The landlord contacted the occupants of the property above who notified the landlord they would advise it when they returned to the property. The landlord subsequently accessed the property above on 25 April 2022 and confirmed a small, isolated leak on the washing machine water pipe.
The leaseholder reported a leak into the property on 9 June 2022. The landlord traced the leak to a copper pipe on the washing machine in the property above and advised the occupant not to use it until they repaired it.
The leaseholder sent a further complaint to the landlord on 10 June 2022. The leaseholder said:
1. His complaint related to the continuous stream of leaks in the property, which started around 15 – 18 years ago.
2. Since 2009, he had submitted 14 insurance claims for water ingress predominantly from the property above.
3. The landlord had failed in keeping the property above structurally sound and safe so as not to cause problems in other properties.
4. He wished to claim compensation from the landlord.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the leaseholder on 27 June 2022. The response said:
1. Its contractors had attended the reported leak on 9 June 2022 and found a leak on the washing machine hosepipe in the above property. The responsibility for the washing machine was the occupants of the above property and the landlord advised them to repair the hose.
2. Previous repairs in the property above were carried out to a satisfactory standard in June 2020.
3. Payments for previous incidents had been paid by the insurers to the leaseholder.
4. The resident could submit a new insurance claim.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 28 June 2022 stating he wished to add to his complaint that his tenants had informed him that they wanted to terminate their tenancy.
The landlord emailed the leaseholder again on 4 July 2022 in response to his email dated 10 June 2022. In addition to comments made in its previous email the landlord said:
1. It was not clear why the leaseholder wished to escalate the complaint to the next level of the complaint procedure.
2. No further leaks related to the plumbing had been reported since his email of 10 June 2022.
3. It was not able to compensate the leaseholder again in respect of insurance claims for which he had already been paid.
4. 2 leaks in April 2022 and June 2022 were related to the occupant’s washing machine and possession proceedings had been instigated.
5. As he was a leaseholder he could submit further claims on the buildings insurance for damage sustained to the property.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 11 July 2022 to escalate his complaint. The leaseholder said:
1. His complaint relating to compensation was not for repairs to the structure of the property which were covered by the insurance company, but for personal losses and distress.
2. Every time a tenant moved out he had to pay letting agents fees to re-let the property “at about £500 x 14 = £7,000.”
3. Cleaning costs after every leak were about £150 x 14 =£2,100.
4. Lost rent when the property was empty between lettings which was about 1 month every time was £1,300 x 14 = £18,200.
5. During the leak dated 30 May 2020 the property was empty for 9 months because the tenant left during lockdown = £11,500.
6. The property was worth in the region of £300,000 and he had lost 13 years of enjoyment of the lease, which equalled £45,000.
7. His claim dated 10 October 2017, which was his eleventh claim at that time was rejected by the insurance company and he had to cover this repair cost which was £2,000.
8. This was a total of £85,800 of his personal losses, plus the personal distress of dealing with the matter year after year for 13 years and he would not even begin to know how to calculate that figure.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 25 July 2022 to enquire if the landlord had escalated his stage 1 complaint to stage 2 as previously requested. The landlord responded the same day stating the matters the leaseholder raised were being looked into and a full response would be provided when the area team had had the opportunity to consider a response from the insurance team.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the leaseholder on 23 August 2022. The complaint response:
1. Defined the complaint as about:
  1. A continuous stream of leaks from the tenanted property above.
  2. A request for the landlord to make major repairs to the property above.
  3. Compensation for personal losses and personal distress for dealing with issues for 13 years.
2. Provided a detailed update against each of the leaks handled by the insurers between 2009 and 2022.
3. Said 3 incidents were traced to internal plumbing in the property above and repairs had been duly carried out to remedy ingress into the property.
4. Said four incidents were caused by faulty appliances for which the tenant was responsible.
5. Said at no time had the insurers asserted fraud.
6. Said there had been no leaks found in internal plumbing since 5 June 2020.
7. Said he had been paid in full and final settlement by the landlord’s insurers following several claims he made against the council’s building insurance.
8. In view of this the landlord was not able to compensate him again in respect of his claims
9. Said the complaint was not upheld.
The leaseholder reported a further leak into the property on 24 October 2022. The landlord attended the property above but could not gain access and left a calling card at the property requesting access.
The leaseholder emailed a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 25 October 2022. The leaseholder said the landlord had not addressed any of the points in his original complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the leaseholder on 11 November 2022. The response provided a chronology of incidents of water ingress into the property and a summary of information about the causes and resolutions and said:
1. Each time the leaseholder reported a leak to the landlord officers attended promptly and repairs were carried out within reasonable timeframes.
2. The leaseholder did not dispute the numerous settlements paid to him in full and final settlement by the landlord’s insurers.
3. The leaseholder suggested major repairs were required in the property above which was refuted.
4. The landlord accepted the numerous incidents of water ingress over a long period of time were annoying and inconvenient.
5. The source of most of the leaks on record were not due to faulty internal plumbing, several incidents were the result of accidents of faulty appliances belonging to the resident.
6. The landlord was minded to offer a good will gesture of £250 for inconvenience experienced for the numerous insurance claims already settled.
7. The leaseholder should contact a designated person if he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
8. The complaint was not upheld.
The leaseholder submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 15 November 2022 about water damage in the bathroom and the landlord’s handling of leaks into the property. The leaseholder sent a further email to the landlord the same day stating he was standing in the property bathroom as another leak occurred.
The landlord sent an email to the leaseholder on 18 November 2022 in response to his email of 15 November 2022. The landlord said it had located a tiling matter that had caused water ingress into the property. The landlord confirmed a works order to replace the tiling had been raised and the resident above had been notified for works to be completed at the earliest opportunity. The landlord provided the leaseholder with its insurance email address for him to follow up enquiries himself.
The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 29 November 2022 stating he had not received a response to his stage 1 complaint which had been due on 28 November 2022. He therefore wished to add the landlord’s complaint handling to his complaint.
The landlord acknowledge the leaseholder’s stage 1 complaint on 2 December 2022 and confirmed a response would be issued by 29 December 2022. The landlord also said it had responded to the leaseholder’s email dated 15 November 2022 on 18 November 2022 as a service request.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the leaseholder on 23 December 2022. The landlord said:
1. The leaseholder had complained to it about a leak at the property that had occurred on 26 October 2022.
2. The landlord had contacted the leaseholder on 27 October 2022 and concluded that the water ingress was isolated and caused by a spillage rather than a leak.
3. A letter was issued to the upstairs neighbour on 1 November 2022 to advise them not to allow excess water on the floor.
4. The leaseholder had submitted a formal complaint to the landlord about a further leak on 15 November 2022.
5. The leaseholder’s complaint was registered as a service request and responded to on 18 November 2022 when the landlord advised it had raised a works order for new tiling.
6. The landlord completed works to replace the tiling on 13 December 2022.
7. The complaint was not upheld.
The leaseholder escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 28 December 2022. The leaseholder said:
1. He failed to see why the leak was determined as an isolated incident when over 17 leaks were previously reported.
2. The landlord did not investigate the leak that took place on 24 October 2022 effectively which it should have done, and this had led to a further leak on 15 November 2022.
3. A member of the landlord’s staff did not make contact with the leaseholder as suggested and had since been uncontactable.
4. The leaseholder said the complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the leaks.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement email to the leaseholder on 3 January 2023 to confirm his complaint had been registered as a stage 2 complaint. It sent a further acknowledgement email on 4 January 2023 which confirmed the stage 2 complaint would be responded to by 19 January 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the leaseholder on 16 January 2023 The response provided a direct email address for the leaseholder to contact a named staff member and said:
1. The assessment of the incident reported as an isolated leak was plausible.
2. The landlord’s handling of the leaks by instructing a drain specialist to assess the incident and arrange for a tiling repair was conducted in a reasonable timeframe.
3. The number of leaks affecting the leaseholder’s property undoubtedly caused inconvenience.
4. Some properties suffer a disproportionate number of leaks compared to similar properties for various reasons.
5. The complaint was not upheld.
The leaseholder confirmed in a conversation he held with this service on 18 January 2023 that there was an additional leak into the property on 17 January 2023.
The landlord confirmed it had completed a bathroom renewal in the property located above on 21 February 2023 due to concerns regarding its condition.
This service accepted the leaseholder’s complaint as duly made on 15 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management and handling of reports of water ingress into the leaseholder’s property.

Prior to the leaseholder submitting a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 5 June 2020, the landlord’s records show 11 occasions of water ingress affecting the property since 2009. The records indicate the leaks were caused by faulty white goods, the misuse of a shower attachment and as a result of boiler, bathroom, and radiator repairs in the above property which the landlord repaired. 2 further leaks affected the property from the next-door property. It is evident that the impact of the leaks over number years would have been inconvenient and caused distress, time, and trouble to the leaseholder.
Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from January 2020 onward, which is six months prior to the leaseholder’s first formal complaint being made.
The landlord responded to 3 reports of water ingress affecting the leaseholder from the property above between March and May 2020. The landlord did not hold records for an incident of water ingress on 30 March 2020, but confirmed the insurance company had settled the claim. The landlord identified a leak on 7 May 2020 had been caused by a defrosted freezer for which no further action was taken. It did not identify the cause of a leak reported on 30 May 2020, but an insurance claim was submitted. The landlord’s response to identify and remedy reports of the emergency escape of water within 24 hours was appropriate and in line with its repair policy.
The landlord responded to a further report of water ingress coming from the property above on 9 June 2020. The landlord attended the property and carried out repairs to the boiler and a faulty washing machine within 24 hours of the report being made which aligned with its emergency repair timescales. The landlord repaired a further leak from the kitchen sink sealant and the dishwasher a week later on 16 June 2020 and within 24 hours of the leak being reported. The landlord later confirmed that all repairs to the internal plumbing had been fully completed in an email it sent to the leaseholder on 23 July 2020 which was appropriate advice to have provided to reassure the leaseholder matters had been addressed.
The leaseholder raised concerns about the welfare of the resident in the property above in his stage 1 complaint of 5 June 2020. The landlord subsequently confirmed in its email to the leaseholder dated 23 July 2020 that it had made a referral to adult social care on behalf of the resident in the property above but could not share any further information. The landlord’s response suggested it took the leaseholder’s concerns seriously and this was likely to have increased the leaseholder’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of the matters.
The landlord visited the property above and next door to locate a further report of water ingress during November 2020. The landlord was unable to locate any leaks in the property above, provided a drain specialist’s contact details to the next-door neighbour and found a leak under the leaseholder’s bath. The landlord’s investigation of the source of the leak was thorough and beyond its obligations under the lease and thereby demonstrating a resolution focused approach. No further reports of water ingress were reported to the landlord prior to the death of the resident above in July 2021.
Following the death of the resident in the property above the landlord engaged with the family of the deceased about the maintenance of the property. The leaseholder reported 5 further incidents of water ingress between the date of death and the landlord’s final stage 2 complaint response of 16 January 2023. The landlord identified leaks on 3 of these occasions related to the use of a damaged washing machine hose and therefore advised the occupants in the above property not to use it until it was replaced.
The landlord referred the resident to its building insurance, which was appropriate, but it did not seek to learn from outcomes such as by investigating alternative solutions to prevent the cumulative impact of further incidents of water ingress on the leaseholder. Given it was aware of the problems with the washing machine it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have escalated its communication with the occupants so as to prevent the damaged washing machine hose being the cause of repeated detriment.
The landlord considered the impact the water ingress and the subsequent inconvenience submitting insurance claims had on the leaseholder in its stage 2 complaint response dated 16 January 2023. The landlord recognised the incidents over a long period of time were annoying and inconvenient and by doing so showed empathy towards the leaseholder’s experiences. The landlord appropriately clarified that there was not one source of the leaks which were varied and related to the resident’s faulty appliances as well as fittings and fixtures that the landlord had repaired. The landlord offered the leaseholder a compensation payment of £250 in recognition of the inconvenience the matters caused. This was an appropriate decision for the landlord to take and the offer it made was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the leaseholder.
This service is aware that the landlord completed a full bathroom refurbishment in the property above on 21 February 2023. It is unclear why the landlord refuted the need for bathroom refurbishment work in its November 2022 stage 2 complaint response when it later considered it was required. Notwithstanding, the landlord completed the refurbishment work 26 working days after it issued its final complaint response.
The landlord responded to many aspects of the reports of water ingress in an appropriate way. It identified and repaired the matters it was responsible for within reasonable timescales. Further it provided advice and supporting evidence to facilitate the leaseholder’s insurance claims so as to ensure appropriate payments were provided. The landlord failed to make robust arrangements with the leaseholder’s neighbours to satisfy itself that they had repaired their white goods to an acceptable standard and would not cause further leaks. This resulted in detriment being caused to the leaseholder by subsequent leaks from the same source of water ingress. The landlord recognised the inconvenience the leaks and the associated insurance claims had on the leaseholder and offered a proportionate compensation award. The landlord could have made the compensation offer sooner which was a missed opportunity for the landlord to rebuild the leaseholder’s confidence in its handling of the impact of water ingress over an extended period of time. However, taking all matters into account this service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s management and handling of reports of water ingress into the property.

The landlord’s management and handling of the leaseholder’s complaints

In identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaint and compensation policy and procedures. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not handle the leaseholder’s stage 1 complaint (1) of 5 June 2020 in line with its complaint policy as it did not provide an appropriate complaint response. Instead the landlord sent 2 emails to the leaseholder dated 25 June 2020 and 20 July 2020 which did not answer the leaseholder’s complaint fully, confirm if the complaint was upheld or advise how to escalate the matter if the leaseholder was dissatisfied. This resulted in the leaseholder being unclear if his complaint had been responded to and caused him to incur time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response.
2. Responded to the leaseholder’s enquiry about who his complaint had been assigned to in an email it sent on 20 July 2020 by saying “if a written response is required it would be provided within 10 days.” This advice was unclear and caused detriment to the leaseholder who remained unclear about the progress of his complaint.
3. Asked the leaseholder to clarify why he had requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 and, after confirming it was logged and a response would be issued, failed to issue a stage 2 response.
4. Did not acknowledge the leaseholder’s subsequent stage 1 complaint (2) dated 10 June 2022.
5. Failed to provide the leaseholder with an appropriate response to his stage 1 complaint (2). Instead the landlord sent an email to the leaseholder dated 27 June 2022 which did not answer his complaint fully, confirm if the complaint was upheld, or advise how to escalate the matter if he remained dissatisfied. Once again this caused detriment to the leaseholder who remained unclear about the status of his complaint and did not receive a response to the matters he raised.
6. Failed to recognise or acknowledge the leaseholder’s request dated 28 June 2022 to add information to the complaint he considered had not been responded to. Instead the landlord replied on 4 July 2020 saying it was unclear why the leaseholder wished to escalated his complaint. This caused time and trouble to the leaseholder who replied to the landlord on 11 July 2022 with his reasons and a request to escalate his complaint. Further it caused confusion about the landlord’s classification of the complaint and the stage at which it was being considered.
7. Failed to acknowledge the leaseholder’s complaint escalation dated 11 July 2022. Instead it sent an email to the leaseholder on 25 July 2022, 8 working days later than its policy timescales, which said his request to escalate the complaint was being looked into and a full response would be provided.
8. Failed to issue a stage 2 complaint response to the leaseholder’s escalation request, after acknowledging it.
9. Sent a stage 1 response to the leaseholder dated 23 August 2022 in response to the leaseholder’s email of 11 July 2022 despite the landlord previously advising it had recognised the emails as a stage 2 complaint.
10. Did not explain why it had reclassified and responded to the leaseholder’s escalation request as a stage 1 complaint (3).
11. Did not fully address the compensation aspects of leaseholder’s complaint which resulted in him escalating the matter to stage 2 again.
12. Failed to log a new stage 1 complaint (4) dated 15 November 2022 until 2 December 2022, after the leaseholder chased the landlord about its overdue response on 29 November 2022.
13. Referred the resident to the democratic filter in its response of 11 November 2022. This was after 1 October 2022 when this was no longer a requirement under the Scheme.
14. Failed to recognise its complaint handling failures in any of its complaint responses.
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord offered the leaseholder £250 “for the numerous insurance claims already settled,” but failed to consider the time, trouble its complaint handling failings had on the resident. This was unreasonable, given the landlord’s mismanagement of many different elements of the leaseholder’s 4 complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of reports of water ingress into the property
In accordance with paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s management, and handling of a request for compensation for personal losses is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of the leaseholder’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord consistently responded to reports of water ingress in line with its repairs timescales. It repaired the fittings and fixtures it was responsible for, as well as completed some repairs to white goods in the property above which it was not responsible for. The landlord referred the leaseholder to the insurance policy for claims to be made and provided evidence to the insurers where required for the claims to proceed. The landlord failed to make robust arrangements with the leaseholder’s neighbours to satisfy itself that their white goods were repaired, or that they would not use the faulty washing machine and thereby prevent further leaks. However the landlord offered £250 compensation payment to the leaseholder for the inconvenience the impact of water ingress had which was reasonable.
The landlord mismanaged 4 different complaints in different ways and failed to recognise the detriment the handling failures had on the leaseholder. The landlord did not follow its complaint procedure so as to offer an effective complaints service, nor consistently provide responses that were appropriate, empathetic, and sufficiently investigated. The landlord failed to consider its own handling of the leaseholder’s complaint and offer an award of compensation.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the leaseholder for its complaint handling failings. This is to be provided within 28 days of its receipt of this report.
Within 28 days of its receipt of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the leaseholder £400 for time and trouble caused to the leaseholder related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures. The compensation is to be paid in addition to the previous compensation payment of £250 and paid directly to the leaseholder and not offset against any money that the leaseholder may owe the landlord.
The landlord is ordered to consider the learning from this case, and advise this Service of its plans and actions, including timescales, to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. In particular related to the quality and timeliness of complaint responses. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this order within 28 days of receipt of this report.