Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Waltham Forest Council (202101903)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101903

Waltham Forest Council

27 September 2021


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. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a water leak into his property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a flat within a block of flats.
  2. The resident reported a leak to the landlord from an overflowing bath in the property above his on 10 September 2020. He reported that the leak had affected each ceiling in his property, penetrating the electrics, and had soaked his mattresses and carpets. The landlord attended the same day to make the electrics safe. It provided dehumidifiers to the resident on 12 September 2020 and replaced his bathroom light on 14 September 2020. The landlord’s repairs log recorded that the dehumidifiers were to be collected from the resident on 29 September 2020.
  3. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 2 October 2020 in which he requested compensation for the damage caused to his property and personal belongings by the leak he reported on 10 September 2020. He said that the leak had caused significant inconvenience for him and his household due to them being unable to use the bathroom afterwards. The resident said he had also sustained damage to his clothes, telephones, and his mattress which had impacted him financially. He added that the property was still damp despite using the dehumidifier and a smell persisted and pointed out that this had been the fourth instance of a leak affecting his property from his neighbour above, who he believed to have mental health issues.
  4. On 12 October 2020, following its visit to the property on 8 October 2020, the landlord raised works to carry out a full redecoration of the property which included:             
    1. Stripping paper from, and making good, the walls and ceilings in the bedroom and hallway of the property.
    2. Applying sealer and stabiliser to the walls and ceiling of the bathroom.
    3. Painting and decorating the property in a colour to be chosen by the resident.
  5. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 22 October 2020. In this, it noted that the cause of the leak had been an overflowing bath from the property above his and that the leak had since stopped. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged an appointment with the resident to attend on 27 October 2020 to carry out full redecoration to the affected areas, despite internal decorating of the property generally being the resident’s responsibility. It said that it had taken responsibility for the decorating on this occasion in consideration of the inconvenience caused to him by the leak.
  6. The landlord said that it was unable to offer compensation for the resident’s personal items damaged by the leak and suggested that he obtain home contents insurance to cover such situations in the future. It acknowledged, following its conversation with him earlier that day, that the cost of running the dehumidifier had impacted his finances and the experience had caused him distress. The landlord therefore offered £100 compensation for the distress the resident experienced and £50 for the inconvenience and cost of running the dehumidifiers.
  7. On 19 November 2020, the landlord exchanged correspondence with its contractors about the scheduled redecoration works. It found that, following contact with the resident the previous week, the works had not been completed due to the contractor removing their workers from the site because to new corona virus restrictions. The landlord and its contractor arranged for a joint inspection of the property on 30 November 2020.
  8. The landlord’s contractor advised on 8 December 2020 that the decoration was complete at the property, but they suspected that there continued to be an issue with damp. The landlord inspected the property on 18 December 2020 and its report on the work found that the redecoration had not been carried out to specification and exhibited “poor workmanship”. The landlord set a date of 20 January 2021 for the completion of the work by the contractor, with a post-inspection set for the following day.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 9 December 2020. He said that it had not adequately addressed his concerns in its previous response. The resident highlighted that he had been unable to use the bathroom for a “few days” after the leak occurred on 10 September 2020 because the light had been disconnected to allow it to dry out. He pointed out that, while the dehumidifier helped “a bit”, this did not prevent the formation of mould and a bad smell in the property. The resident informed the landlord that dampness and a smell in the property persisted.
  10. The resident said that he had been inconvenienced by the moving of furniture around the property while the landlord carried out the decorating works, which he said lasted seven weeks and had left him “physically and mentally drained”. He advised that he had since returned the landlord’s compensation cheque, stating that the offer was insufficient for the level of inconvenience he had experienced. The resident said that he would accept compensation of £450 to resolve the complaint.
  11. The landlord apologised to the resident on 27 January 2021 for being unable to meet its deadline for providing him with its final response to his complaint. It spoke to him on 28 January 2021 when he confirmed that there was currently no active leak affecting his property, only a matter of dampness in the hallway.
  12. The landlord subsequently issued its final response to him on 3 February 2021, in which it acknowledged that he had originally escalated his complaint on 9 December 2020. The landlord explained to the resident that, due to it providing an incorrect complaint reference in its stage one response to him, and him escalating the complaint anonymously, his complaint had not been addressed correctly. It advised that it had then logged the escalation of his complaint on 21 December 2020. The landlord noted that the complaint had therefore been delayed but did not consider that a “significant injustice” had been caused to him as he had since been able to have his complaint considered at the final stage of its complaints process. 
  13. The landlord noted the resident’s comments about damage to his personal belongings resulting from the leak on 10 September 2020. It expressed sympathy with his situation but asserted that claims for damage to personal property were outside of its complaints process and were more appropriate for consideration through an insurance claim. The landlord suggested the resident raise the matter with his home contents insurer; it also provided its own insurance details if he wished to pursue a claim against itself. It considered that it had been correct to direct him to contact his own contents insurer in its stage one complaint response.
  14. The landlord noted the resident’s comments about the bathroom light being unavailable and relayed from its records that the bathroom light had been found to be unrepairable on 14 September 2020. It had attended again on 30 September 2020, found that the leak was still ongoing, and isolated the light and smoke detector to make them safe. The landlord acknowledged that remedial decoration works had been arranged but not completed by its contractor, and after recalling the contractor, these works were found to have been of inadequate quality at its inspection on 18 December 2020.
  15. The landlord asserted that its initial response to the resident’s report of the leak had been prompt but noted the potential inconvenience caused by the lack of a light in the bathroom. It also acknowledged that it did not have records of when this was eventually fixed. The landlord considered that this should have been dealt with as an emergency repair and therefore felt that compensation was due for this failing.
  16. The landlord also noted that its contractor had the opportunity to complete the decoration work prior to corona virus lockdown restrictions. It noted that the appointment had been made for 27 October 2020, but the contractor did not complete the work, and by the time the landlord had discovered this, further corona virus restrictions had come into force. This had the effect of prolonging the resident’s wait for the decorating work to be completed.
  17. The landlord informed the resident that it was still investigating the problems leading to the leak and was uncertain of the extent to which any continued water leaks may be affecting him. It advised that it would be contacting him “urgently to establish whether any immediate action [was] required to alleviate any adverse conditions in the property”.
  18. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, recognising that, while it originally responded promptly, its subsequent work had been unsatisfactory. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord re-offered the £150 compensation it offered to him in its stage one complaint response and an additional £100 for its delay in completing the redecoration work and an additional £50 for the inconvenience of lacking a light in the bathroom. This brought its offer of compensation to £300 in total.
  19. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 March 2020 to seek payment of the compensation it offered in its final response. This was issued to him by cheque on 30 March 2020.
  20. The resident contacted this Service on 12 May 2021 to advise that the landlord had not paid him the compensation it had offered in its final response, nor had it kept to its agreement to complete the repairs to the property.  The landlord subsequently re-issued the cheque for compensation on 9 June 2021 and its records noted that it was to re-inspect the property on 15 June 2021 following his further reports of a leak which was causing damage and attracting insects.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance to the structure of the property. This also states that it regards repairs which constitute a safety hazard or make a property uninhabitable, such a fire or flood, as emergency repairs. These emergency repairs are to be responded to within 24 hours when raised during working hours or within two hours if raised to the landlord’s out-of-hours service.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy further states that its insurances do not cover residents’ possessions and residents are advised during the sign-up process to obtain their own contents insurance to cover these items. Where damage has occurred to a resident’s decoration which is not the landlord’s fault, the resident will be expected to claim for this under their own insurance.
  3. The landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments webpage confirms that it has a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one of the procedure it is to provide a response to the resident within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint. At the final stage of the procedure, it is to provide its response within 25 working days. 
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that it will pay compensation where there has been a fault on its part and there has been an injustice to the resident. Its definition of an injustice includes distress, which may include “inconvenience, worry, outrage, raised expectations, lost opportunity and uncertainty”. This policy also states that it will not pay compensation for damage caused by a third party.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak

  1. As confirmed by the landlord’s repairs policy above, the landlord was responsible for carrying repairs to the structure of the property. It was therefore appropriate for it to attend to address the leak affecting the ceilings of his property which he reported on 10 September 2020. As the reported leak affected the electrics in the ceiling, the landlord therefore responded appropriately by carrying out an emergency visit to the property the same day, in accordance with its repairs policy above, as this issue had the potential to pose a safety hazard to the resident and his household.
  2. In response to the resident’s complaint on 2 October 2020, the landlord attended on 8 October 2020 and raised a schedule of decorative works for the property. it was outside of the landlord’s repairing obligation to carry out decorative works resulting from a matter which was not its fault. It is not disputed that the source of the leak was an overflowing bath from the upstairs property. This was outside of the landlord’s control, and it would have been in accordance with its repairs policy above for it to decline to carry out any decorative work. Therefore, it offered to carry this work out in excess of its strict obligations. This has been considered when assessing the landlord’s overall compensation offer.
  3. While the landlord was not obliged to carry out decorative work, once it agreed to do so, it would be expected to complete this work to a reasonable standard and within a reasonable timeframe to minimise disruption and distress to the resident. The redecoration work was delayed excessively, as acknowledged by the landlord, in its final stage complaint response on 3 February 2021. This work was raised by the landlord on 8 October 2021 and by the time of its final complaint response was still incomplete. It was reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to offer compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.
  4. There was a period of approximately four months between the landlord first scheduling the redecoration work and it recognising that it was incomplete in its final complaint response. While it is noted that the landlord made efforts to have this work completed by its contractors by liaising with them on 19 November 2020 and carrying out an inspection on 18 December 2020, it was a failing on the landlord’s part for the works to have been delayed to this extent.
  5. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for payments of £250 to £700 for instances of where there has been “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”. (This guidance is available to view on our service’s website.) Ordinarily, a compensation award within this range would be considered for the significant delay in the landlord completing the decoration works. However, given that the decoration work itself was offered in excess of its obligations, this therefore represented a form of redress in itself. In view of this, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation for the resident’s inconvenience due to the leak and the delay in carrying out the decoration work, was reasonable additional redress for this element of the complaint.
  6. The landlord acknowledged, in its stage one complaint response on 22 October 2020, that the use of the dehumidifiers between 11 and 29 September 2020 had caused the resident inconvenience and offered him £50 compensation for this. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance above, this amount was also reasonable, given the short duration involved and that the dehumidifiers were provided as part of the landlord’s efforts to remedy the impact of the leak.
  7. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged, in its final response that inconvenience had been caused to the resident by his not having use of a bathroom light for a “few days”, which it had not considered in its stage one complaint response to him. Its ultimate offer of £50 compensation for the lack of use of the bathroom light was a reasonable offer as this was in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance.
  8. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance considers that offers of £50 to £250 compensation are appropriate in instances where a failure has occurred which “had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. While it is unclear exactly how long the resident was without the use of his bathroom light, it is not disputed that this did not exceed a “few days” and there was no evidence of further repair issues being reported regarding this.
  9. The resident has said that her personal possessions were damaged by the leak and he is seeking compensation from the landlord to cover the cost of replacing these items. As above, the evidence suggests that the landlord was not at fault for causing the leak and therefore it would not be expected to compensate the resident for damage to his possessions caused by the leak. In line with the tenancy agreement, residents are advised to take out their own home contents insurance to cover damage to their possessions due to incidents such as leaks and floods.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s final complaint response to the resident stated that it did not consider that it had not caused “significant injustice” to him by providing him with an incorrect complaint reference number initially in it stage one complaint response which led to its delay in logging his complaint escalation. This delay, which the landlord acknowledged, contributed to it issuing its final complaint response 12 working days in excess of the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. Therefore, it acknowledged that it had failed to handle the complaint in accordance with the timeframe stated on its complaints, compliments and comments webpage above.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy above, considers an injustice to include “uncertainty” and “worry”. Considering that the resident informed it that he was still experiencing issues in the property due to persistent dampness and a smell, its final complaint response to him did not acknowledge the potential for this to have caused him distress in the form of uncertainty and worry while he awaited a response to this. Therefore, there was a failure by the landlord to consider the potential injustice caused by its delayed final response and provide compensation accordingly.
  3. There was also a delay in the landlord paying the compensation to the resident and it is not clear from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman whether this has now been paid. This delay would have contributed to the inconvenience experienced by the resident and it has been taking into account when considering the overall compensation which is payable for errors in the landlord’s handling of this complaint.
  4. As the duration of the delay in the landlord providing its final response was not excessively long, and there was no evidence that the resolution it offered was likely to have differed if it had responded sooner, compensation is not warranted. The resident is also partially accountable for the delay as he did not use an online registered account which resulted in the complaint taking longer to be traced and responded to.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint about its response to his report of a leak satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord offered to carry out decorative works which were in excess of its obligations, and offered compensation which was reasonable to address its subsequent delays in carrying out that work, and the inconvenience caused to the resident by the temporary lack of a bathroom light and operating dehumidifiers.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing its final response, however this was not helped by the fact the resident did not use an online registered account knowing the complaint may not reach the landlord. There was minor service failure by the landlord in its handling of the compliant but this was not significant enough to warrant compensation.

Recommendations

43. It is recommended that the landlord:

a.  pays the £300 compensation it offered in its final response, unless this has already been paid.

b.   reviews the history of this case and considers what action it can take to prevent the leaks from reoccurring in the future.

c. Unless the resident confirms that the repairs have already been completed to his satisfaction, the landlord should carry out an inspection to identify any outstanding repairs that are required following the leak and damage to the decoration. The landlord should then carry out any outstanding repairs in line with the timescales listed in its repairs policy.