The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London Borough of Ealing (202210459)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210459

London Borough of Ealing

16 January 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak at his property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a top floor maisonette as a secure tenant. He lives with his wife and two children. The property has 3 bedrooms and a bathroom on each floor.
  2. From July 2021 there were a number of reported leaks from the resident or his neighbour to the landlord, as follows:
    1. The resident’s neighbour reported a leak from the resident’s property on 12 July 2021. An inspection the same day found no source for the leak but determined the resident’s wash basin was not draining correctly.
    2. The resident reported to the landlord that water was coming from his roof on 22 July 2021. Scaffolding was erected on 20 October 2021 and a repair to the tiles in the resident’s roof was completed on 26 October 2021.
    3. On 13 September 2021 the resident’s neighbour reported a further leak coming from the resident’s property. The landlord traced the leak to the resident’s property and completed a fix to the boiler discharge pipe. It investigated the leak reported on 12 July 2021 at the same time finding it may need to remove the toilet and boxing to check for the leak.
    4. On 29 October 2021 the resident reported his roof was still leaking despite the works of 26 October 2021. The landlord determined on 4 November 2021 the leak was due to a plumbing issue which it resolved on 19 November 2021 replacing the coupling on the resident’s basin waste.
  3. The resident attempted to raise a compensation claim for damage to his dining table, flooring, and interior decoration from January 2022 with the landlord’s insurer and was supported by the landlord’s surveyor in doing so. As part of their contact with the resident the surveyor raised a work order on 3 February 2022 to make good the resident’s property following the repairs for each reported leak. (This was completed in part on 21 March 2022.)
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 28 February 2022 as he received no response to his concerns for damage to his property. On the same date he reported the leak was still present in his property and affecting his neighbour. The landlord inspected on 21 March 2022 and its notes state there was both no leak and that it fixed a leak to the resident’s boiler.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident on 29 March 2022. It told the resident the following:
    1. It was not responsible for damage to personal possessions, and he should claim through his contents insurance.
    2. It said it was delayed in logging an order for remedial repairs following an inspection it completed on 1 November 2021 and that it should have done this in 3 working days.
    3. It confirmed remedial work began on 21 March 2022 following the leak and any further appointments would be booked directly between the resident and contractor.
    4. It said it upheld the resident’s overall complaint, apologised for delays in completing the repairs and for any inconvenience. It offered £50 him compensation.
  6. The resident had significant issues in escalating his complaint following this and was unable to reach the landlord. His escalation request was acknowledged as received by the landlord on 9 June 2022. The resident chased his response with the landlord on 28 June, 11 July, and 27 July 2021. Intervention was required by this Service in September 2022 to support the resident in receiving a stage two complaint response.
  7. The landlord provided the resident with its stage two complaint response on 24 October 2022. It told him the following:
    1. It inspected the leak on 22 July 2021 and completed a repair to the tiles on 26 October 2021. It attended again and resolved a further leak, due to a plumbing issue.
    2. It completed remedial work to strip wallpaper and make good the wall on 21 March 2022. It had raised remedial work to other rooms in the property but was not certain if this had been completed. It said it would arrange a surveyor to attend to review any outstanding repairs and the roof.
    3. It upheld that it did not manage the resident’s complaint within its timescale and offered a further £50 compensation.
    4. It asked the resident to provide a detailed list of his damaged possessions with evidence so that it could review compensation. It said it could not consider carpet or flooring as this was for house insurance.
  8. The landlord completed a survey of the property on 27 October 2022. It found there were no current leaks and “everything was free flowing”. It raised a number of repair issues in the resident’s lounge, lower bathroom and upper bathroom that were caused by the investigatory work to identify the leaks between July 2021 and February 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak at his property.

  1. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be more usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The tenancy agreement confirms in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord will keep in repair, the structure, exterior, common parts, and installations for supply of water and sanitation. It notes that emergencies include floods and leaks and will carry out repairs within reasonable timeframes, giving priority to emergency repairs. The resident is responsible for repairs resulting from an act by the resident, any visitors or third party they have employed.
  3. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy confirms the landlord will identify the nature of any repair request and deal with it in a way that is “suitable or right for the situation”. It states it will respond to emergency repairs within the same working day, urgent and routine repairs no later than 15 working days and planned repairs in 60 working days.
  4. Where a repair needs to be repeated due to a problem with the original work or part failure, the landlord will ask the original contactor to attend within 24 hours with work reissued at zero value. Where contractors have not completed work within target response times, the landlord’s patch surveyor will escalate to a senior surveyor to follow up or reassign.
  5. There were multiple leaks and delays resolving these, which affected both the resident and his neighbour. These have been separated below for ease of reading.

Wash basin leak

  1. On 12 July 2021 the resident’s neighbour reported a leak in his property coming from the neighbour’s property. The investigation completed by the landlord on the same day determined there was no leak in the resident’s bathroom and it was not a plumbing issue. However, it identified the wash basin in the bathroom was not draining properly and could be easily flooded by children. There is no evidence to suggest at this point the landlord acted to remedy or further investigate this. This is important as following this up to 29 October 2021 the resident’s neighbour continued to report a leak directly under the bathroom from the resident’s property and on 19 November 2021 the landlord repaired a leak located on the waste to the wash basin.
  2. The landlord failed to act on relevant information about the wash basin when the potential issue was first identified in July 2021, suggesting it did not take its responsibility seriously to remedy the drainage issue the resident was having. The landlord’s inaction from 12 July 2021 prolonged this specific leak issue, which caused inconvenience and distress to the resident but also potentially impacted the relationship between the resident and his neighbour.

Roof leak

  1. The resident reported a leak coming from his roof on 22 July 2021. It is unclear if the landlord attended on the same day in accordance with its Repair Policy of attending within 24 hours. The first notes it has following the report are on 3 August 2021 where it identified scaffolding would be required to reach the roofline due to the height of the property.
  2. There was delay in the landlord internally approving the scaffolding and it took between 4 August and 13 September 2021 to approve this. This prolonged the completion of the repair, causing uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident. Following this, further work including; the scaffolding erection on 20 October 2021 and the repair to the aluminium tile on 26 October 2021 were completed in an appropriate timescale.
  3. Although the repair was complete on 26 October 2021 the scaffolding was not removed from the property until 1 February 2022. The scaffolding remained at the property after completion of the repair for a total of 99 days. This Service has seen no evidence to suggest there was further work that required use of the scaffolding during this period. As such the delay in removing the scaffolding caused further inconvenience to the resident and prolonged full resolution to the roof repair issue.
  4. The resident believed his roof was continuing to leak and reported this to the landlord on 29 October 2021. On the same date it booked an appointment for 4 November 2021 to attend the property to investigate the report. In doing so it failed to treat the report as an emergency as would have been appropriate given the nature of the resident’s report and failed to attend to investigate the report within 24 hours in accordance with its Repairs Policy. The landlord later identified the leak to be from the wash basin and resolved the issue on 19 November 2021. The delay in investigating and resolving the issue caused inconvenience to the resident whilst managing the leak in his home.

Boiler leak

  1. The resident’s neighbour reported a further leak coming from the resident’s property on 13 September 2021. There is no evidence the landlord treated this as an emergency and attended within 24 hours as per its Repairs Policy. The first evidence of it taking action was 21 September 2021 where it traced the leak to the resident’s property. The delay caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident and affected his relationship with his neighbour. Once it identified the leak it corrected this appropriately by repairing the leak on 21 September 2021 by reconnecting the discharge pipe on the resident’s boiler.
  2. The resident reported a further leak into his and his neighbour’s property on 28 February 2022. The landlord arranged an appointment for 21 March 2022 to investigate which suggests it did not treat the leak as an emergency as it did not attend within 24 hours in accordance with its Repairs Policy. The notes recorded when it attended on 21 March 2022 state confusingly that there was both no leak, and also that it fixed a leak to the resident’s boiler. There were no further reports of leaks following this which suggests the issue was rectified at this point.

Remedial work

  1. The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the condition of the resident’s property on 1 November 2021 finding it needed to make good in the lounge and both bathrooms. In its Responsive Repairs Policy, it states it must raise a job ticket for any remedial work required within 24 hours. In its stage one complaint response the landlord gave a timescale of 3 working days for the same action. The landlord failed to raise a work order until 3 February 2022, which was 95 days, exceeding the 24 hours or 3 working day targets.
  2. Once the work order was raised on 3 February 2022 the remedial work began on 21 March 2022. It removed wallpaper and skimmed the resident’s lounge wall only. However, it failed to notify the resident in between 3 February and 21 March 2022 of any appointments, which meant he had to take the time and trouble to chase this with the landlord’s surveyor on 2 March 2022.
  3. In its stage one complaint response the landlord apologised for the delay in completing the remedial repairs and offered £50 compensation. It told the resident work started on 21 March 2022 and further work would be arranged between the contractor and the resident. This never took place, and no further remedial work was attempted. This prolonged the issue for the resident, affecting his relationship with the landlord and causing him further inconvenience and distress.
  4. The landlord’s stage two complaint response of 24 October 2022 recognised no further remedial work had taken place at the resident’s property from 21 March 2022 and the landlord admitted it was uncertain why this was. It said it would arrange a survey to determine what further action was required in the property. Its stage two response failed to recognise the impact the delay in completing the remedial work had on the resident, including the inconvenience and distress it had caused to him. It failed to apologise to him or consider further compensation for this delay and the impact on him.
  5. Between 21 March and 24 October 2022, the resident chased the progress of the remedial repair work on 11 and 27 July 2022. The landlord had the opportunity to investigate at both dates whilst the complaint was pending but instead delayed its response and any action until it was able to provide its stage two complaint response on 24 October 2022. This caused further frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
  6. Further evidence provided by the landlord shows on 8 March 2023 the landlord scheduled an operative to investigate the remaining remedial work and ensure work was completed. However, the resident has informed this Service on 11 January 2024 the remedial work is still outstanding. This reneges on the landlord’s commitment in its stage two complaint response that it would take further action based on the survey report it completed on 27 October 2022. This affected the resident’s confidence that the landlord would put things right and further prolonged the inconvenience and distress caused to him.
  7. An order will be raised to ensure any outstanding remedial work is completed in the resident’s property. This is to ensure the standard within the property is returned to what it was before the investigatory work took place to identify the source of the leaks.

Record keeping

  1. Information held by the landlord from its contractor on 28 February 2022 states confusingly there was no leak in the resident’s property, and it fixed a leak to the resident’s boiler. Although there was no impact at the time, this was inaccurate and had the potential to affect how the landlord approached further leaks in the property.
  2. In its stage two complaint response the landlord stated it was not aware if, or what other action its contractor had taken to complete remedial work in the resident’s property from 21 March 2022. It later found in January 2023 that its contractor had recorded the remedial work as complete from 21 March 2022 and closed the job.
  3. It is expected a landlord and contractor have a symbiotic relationship. In this case the poor communication between the two halted any further remedial work taking place from 21 March 2022, which added to the resident’s distress as he did not know what was happening and was often required to chase the progress himself. Had the landlord been proactive in finding out the contractor’s position before January 2023 it could have investigated and put the work order for the remaining remedial work back in place.
  4. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.

Insurance

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Guidance states where a resident possessions have been damaged due to a failure to repair, it will be dealt with through an insurance claim. The same guidance also states it should compensate the resident for any failures of contractors to provide a service.
  2. The resident had difficulty initially in obtaining a response from the landlord about whether he could raise an insurance claim with them. He emailed them on 20 January 2022 and this Service has seen evidence the landlord’s insurance team asked the landlord’s housing and complaints teams to respond on 25 and 26 January 2022. They said it was a disrepair issue and not an insurance issue. The resident was not contacted at this point, causing frustration and inconvenience to him.
  3. In his frustration at not receiving a response the resident raised a complaint on 23 February 2022. The resident chased further response on 1 March 2022 and copied the landlord’s surveyor in, who dutifully apologised for the delay on 2 March 2022. The surveyor forwarded the concerns to the landlord’s complaints teams.
  4. On 2 March 2022 when the insurance team were asked by the complaints team to contact the resident, they refused. They referred the complaints team to their emails of 25 and 26 January 2022. The poor communication internally at the landlord delayed the resident receiving a prompt response explaining why they could not consider his insurance request. They delayed doing this until they provided their stage one complaint response, by which time 69 days had passed from his initial enquiry. This caused significant frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. The stage one complaint response from the landlord informed him that it could not consider his request for compensation for his property, and he would need to claim through contents insurance. This was in accordance with the information in its Compensation Guidance. However as previously established there was some delay in fixing the leak to the resident’s roof. In failing to consider the resident’s request for compensation the landlord failed in its obligation to put things right and return the resident’s property to the position before the leak occurred.
  6. The stage two complaint response offered an appropriate response to the resident in suggesting it could consider paying for damage to his possessions if he provided detailed evidence, but he would need to claim on his home insurance for his flooring. This showed the landlord was willing to put things right for the damage it had caused, however it should have done this much earlier.
  7. The resident spoke with the Ombudsman on 11 January 2024. He confirmed he had previously provided photographic evidence to the landlord of the damage to his flooring and table for it to consider as agreed in its stage two response. He said the landlord phoned him around June or July 2023 and discussed the photographic evidence with him. He believed this was to determine whether it could award him a payment for damage to his property. He said he received no further response from the landlord following this.
  8. The Ombudsman has not seen the evidence relating to further actions on this point following the completion of the complaints process. It is of concern however that the resident has reported that he has not received a response on the further information he provided. In the circumstances and in order to encourage the parties to identify a resolution on this issue, a recommendation has been detailed below for the landlord to consider the resident’s evidence and request for compensation for his personal possessions and for it to provide a response to the resident with the outcome of this process.

Compensation

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states for failure to complete repairs within target time it will pay £10 for the first day and £2 for every working day thereafter. This is up to a maximum of £50. For time and trouble, it can offer a maximum of £50 for stage 1 complaints and £150 for stage 2 complaints. It can also offer discretionary payment of up to £1000.
  2. The landlord’s stage one complaint response offered compensation of £50 for delays in completing repairs. This met the landlord’s policy of paying a maximum of £50 for failure to complete repairs within targets. The Ombudsman finds the sums offered by the landlord not to be proportionate to the detriment suffered by the resident for the time, trouble, and inconvenience he suffered.
  3. The Ombudsman finds the total compensation offered by the landlord as insufficient. It failed to recognise:
    1. The extent of the detriment caused to the resident by the delay in repairing the leak in his roof and leak in his wash basin and the inconvenience in managing these in his home.
    2. The delay in removing the scaffolding from the resident’s home and the inconvenience this caused.
    3. The time and trouble suffered by the resident in chasing the remedial repairs.
    4. Its poor communications and failure to liaise and manage its contractors.
    5. The delay in assessing and providing a response regarding the report of damage to his property.
  4. In summary the Ombudsman finds the compensation offered by the landlord not to be proportionate to the detriment suffered by the resident. This is because the issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in moderate inconvenience to the resident. Due to the number of issues detailed above, the Ombudsman has awarded £700 compensation to the resident. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where maladministration has occurred over a protracted period with significant impact to the resident’s household.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states it will speak with a complainant within 24 hours of receipt of a complaint, clarify the details and clearly communicate timescales and next contact dates. It aims to provide stage one complaint responses in 10 days and stage two complaint responses in 20 working days. Where it is unable to respond in timescale it will explain the reasons why keeping the complaint open until all actions have been completed.
  2. The landlord’s Compensation Guidance states it can offer £10 for failure to keep to targets when dealing with complaints.
  3. The resident raised his initial complaint on 23 February 2022 and the landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 29 March 2022. The total response time was 35 days, outside of the landlord’s timescale for response of 10 days in its Complaints Policy.
  4. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident within 24 hours of the initial complaint, to clarify the details of his complaint and inform him when it would reply as required by the internal complaints procedure in its Complaints Policy.
  5. The landlord’s stage one and stage two complaint responses made no reference to its delay in responding at stage one. It should have done this at both points, apologised to the resident and considered compensation.
  6. The resident had difficulty in contacting the landlord to escalate his complaint. He eventually obtained support to do this from the landlord’s surveyor on 30 May 2022, who acknowledged in internal communications the difficulties residents had in contacting the landlord. The resident told the landlord his housing officer was unhelpful and refused to help him escalating his complaint. There is no evidence the landlord investigated the point made about the Housing Officer. The landlord failed to show the resident it was taking all his concerns seriously and investigate the Housing Officer’s behaviour. This affected the resident’s trust in the landlord and that it could support him appropriately in the future.
  7. The resident raised his escalation request on 30 May 2022 and received acknowledgement of his complaint the same day. The landlord told the resident on 9 June 2022 he had incorrectly raised a further stage one complaint and was able to rectify this the same day. The time taken to inform the resident of this delayed the complaint response causing further inconvenience to him. It would be expected the landlord had the necessary knowledge on what action it could take to consider the resident’s escalation, much sooner than it did.
  8. The resident chased his complaint on 28 June and 11 July 2022. He was told on 11 July 2022 there was significant backlog due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is understandable, and it would reply by 29 July 2022. It failed to meet this further deadline and the resident chased again on 27 July 2022. Clearly frustrated the resident contacted this Service who asked the landlord twice in September 2022 for it to reply.
  9. The landlord’s stage two response was provided to the resident on 24 October 2022. Its time taken to respond was 103 working days, which was outside the timescale to respond of 20 working days in its Complaints Policy.
  10. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in its stage two complaint response for its delay in responding to his complaint. This exceeds the landlord’s Compensation Guidance of £10 for delays in responding to complaints. However, both amounts are not in proportion to the findings of the complaint. This Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance suggests a failure which adversely affects the resident should provide level of redress between £100 and £600.
  11. In summary the landlord was delayed in providing its stage one and stage two complaint responses to the resident prolonging the concerns for him, causing further inconvenience and distress. It failed to recognise its delay at stage one and offered disproportionate compensation for its delay at stage two.
  12. The resident suffered barriers in attempting to escalate his complaint and was unable to contact the landlord causing further frustration and inconvenience to him. It was ineffective for the landlord not to investigate the concerns raised by the resident about the Housing Officer, which suggests it was not willing to take appropriate action and learn from complaints. The Ombudsman expects landlords to identify and respond to all issues raised as part of a complaints process as otherwise they will fail to resolve issues and identify wider learning. This also results in a deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship.
  13. A landlords complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy in its stage one and two complaint response time and its communication with the resident. A determination of maladministration has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £250 compensation has been ordered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak at his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior member of staff to write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £950 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays and inappropriate handling of his reports about leaks in his property.
      2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and unreasonable complaint handling.
      3. The above amount includes any compensation already paid to the resident by the landlord during the complaints process.
  2. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Conduct a review of its repairs record keeping processes and procedures in light of the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s KIM report. The landlord is to provide this service with the outcome of its findings and any actions it proposes to take as a result.
    2. Complete any outstanding remedial work in the resident’s property to ‘make good’ following its investigatory work following the reported leaks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review any evidence provided to it from the resident of damage to his personal possessions and to provide the resident with the outcome of its review in writing.