London Borough of Enfield (202122495)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122495

Enfield Council

30 March 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 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 a leak to the resident’s property, its lack of maintenance to the building’s pipework and the compensation amount offered.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated insurance claim.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder, the landlord is the freeholder. During this time period, the resident had tenants in the property, who had a small baby.
3. On 2 October 2020, the resident was informed by her tenants that there was a leak coming into the property. After finding that the leak stemmed from a blocked pipe, the resident reported the repair to the landlord on 3 October 2020. She followed up the report on 4 October 2020. The landlord responded, promising to send an operative to the property that day. When no one attended, the resident contacted the landlord, who explained that it would now send out an operative on 7 October 2020. After attending, the landlord concluded that scaffolding was necessary to undertake the repair. It raised an order for this on 14 October 2021.
4. On 21 October 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord, stating that no repairs had taken place, and water was still leaking into the flat. She complained that this issue had occurred in previous years, and was due to the landlord failing to have a maintenance policy for the pipework. The resident followed up on her repairs on 2 November 2020, where she was informed that there was no repair logged on the system. She submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer on 3 November 2020.
5. Also on 3 November 2020, the resident paid for a private contractor to test the electrics to ensure they were safe. She also paid for the contractor to unblock what could be reached of the pipe (without scaffolding).
6. The landlord sent its stage one response on 24 November 2020, it apologised and explained that the delay was due to a lack of communication regarding the need for scaffolding between its contractors. It stated it would attend on 25 November 2020 to repair the pipe. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She explained that the repair remained outstanding, which was affecting her tenants who were now living in poor conditions with damp and mould. She reiterated her dissatisfaction at the landlord’s lack of a maintenance policy for the pipes, and its failure to provide an effective repairs service. She also complained that the insurers would not currently allow her claim, as the landlord had failed to provide them with an adequate response.
7. The landlord unblocked the whole pipe on 11 December 2020.
8. The landlord responded on 22 January 2021. It explained that there had been a second delay, which was necessary to ensure that the job was completed to the correct specification. It confirmed that it did not have a regular maintenance program for cleaning the pipes, but aimed to respond promptly if an issue was reported. However, in recognition of the resident’s inconvenience, the landlord offered £75 compensation for time and trouble and £112.50 for her distress.
9. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s delays to her repairs, which resulted in the damage to her property being exacerbated. She does not believe that the landlord’s lack of a maintenance policy for cleaning its pipework and guttering is appropriate. She is also unhappy with its inadequate response to the insurers, and the amount of compensation it has offered her.  She has stated that the pipework has already become blocked again, and is currently leaking into her home once more.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s property, its lack of maintenance to the building’s pipework and the compensation amount offered.

10. Under its lease agreement, the landlord is responsible to repair and keep in a reasonable state of repair the structure and exterior of the block including all drains, gutters, external pipes, roof and to make good any defects affecting the structure of the block. The landlord is also responsible for providing repair services to the flat, as often as shall be necessary, and to keep it in good working order. This is subject to the leaseholder paying all associated service charges.
11. The landlord’s housing repairs, maintenance and planned works policy reiterates that it is responsible for the external water supply, associated plumbing, as well as the guttering. It is also responsible for checking the flat electrics after water penetration, within emergency timescales. The same policy states that where there is a leak that is not containable by the resident or represents a significant health and safety risk, the landlord should attend within emergency timescales. Leaks that are containable, are classed as urgent, such as blocked rainwater drains and the resulting water penetration.
12. Emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours. Urgent repairs, defined as repairs that cause discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance should be attended within five days. Routine repairs, defined as defects that are not likely to cause any serious discomfort or inconvenience and where there will not be any obvious consequential cost of not undertaking the work sooner, should be attended within 30 days.
13. According to the above repairs policy, the landlord should have attended the property to repair the blocked drain within five working days. The landlord attended initially within these timescales to inspect the issue, but did not manage to unblock the drain, or stop the leak for six weeks, which lasted from 2 October 2020 to 11 December 2020. The delay was in part due to the landlord failing to raise a follow-on repair after its initial visit on 7 October 2020. A repair was only raised on 2 November 2020, after the resident had followed up on her repairs on numerous occasions.
14. A delay in repairs is not always classed as a failing, for example if the issue was more complex, or if specialist equipment was needed for the repair. However, the landlord would be expected to manage the repairs effectively by working to find a solution to the issue, and communicating with the resident. The issue in the case was not particularly complex, although scaffolding was necessary to reach the drainage. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to raise the repair for a significant amount of time, and did not communicate adequately with the resident. This is a failing in the circumstances.
15. In the lease agreement above, it states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the drains, external pipes and guttering in good condition. It is therefore inappropriate that the landlord does not have a maintenance policy, or that it does not undertake routine maintenance to the pipework. Due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the pipework, the building has repeatedly had water ingress due to blockages. The resident has stated that the issue has re-occurred as recently as January 2023. This is a failing.
16. The impact of the landlord’s failure to keep to the contractual obligations set out in the lease agreement have been severe, as the resident has now lost faith in its ability to properly maintain the building. The resident’s tenants were also subjected to living in poor conditions caused by the water ingress and resulting damp and mould.  It is concerning that despite the issues identified in this case, the landlord has not learnt from its mistakes and has continued to neglect the maintenance to the pipework. This is a failing.
17. The landlord’s final complaint response was appropriate in that it identified that there had been a delay to repairs and a break down in its communication. It apologised to the resident, and stated that it had discussed this issue with the relevant teams, to prevent a re-occurrence. However, it stated incorrectly that it was the resident’s responsibility to check the electrics, following water ingress. This is contrary to the lease agreement, which states that this is the landlord’s obligation. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation, yet the amount offered (£112.50 for distress and £75 for time and trouble) was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord also failed to consider reimbursing the resident for the works she had to undertake to the property, due to its delay.
18. Due to the repeated issue of water ingress, and the resulting delays in securing the insurance claim, the resident felt that it was necessary to ask her tenants to vacate the premises. She has since been reluctant to re-let the property, as she is concerned that if severe water ingress were to re-occur, she could not afford to rehouse her tenants. She would like to be compensated for the loss of potential rent from the time she felt unable to rent her property. Unfortunately, although the resident’s actions are understandable, this Service cannot award compensation for potential losses. The landlord needs to be given the opportunity to respond to repair issues.

The landlord’s handling of the associated insurance claim.

19. The resident began her claim on the insurance on 3 November 2020. The insurance team contacted the landlord the same day, requesting that it attend the repair and send confirmation of the cause of the damage and completion of works. The insurance team followed up with the landlord on 23 November 2020, asking for an urgent response, as the tenants in situ had a young baby and needed the repairs to make their home safe.
20. The insurance team followed up again with the landlord on 4 January 2021, stating that despite numerous chasers, they had not yet received confirmation of what caused the leak. The team again chased the landlord on 7 January 2021, warning the landlord that the insurers may refuse the claim if it did not provide answers.
21. The landlord responded on 7 January 2021. It explained that the work had been delayed due to an error in its communication, but that the work had been completed on 11 December 2020. The landlord also stated that the original repair report had stemmed from a different flat, and queried if the tenants had reported the issue proactively. It stated that this occasionally occurred when tenants wanted to gain a rent reduction in light of any damage that occurred. This comment is unfounded, as the water ingress was reported proactively by the tenants to the resident, who then informed the landlord. The comments made by the landlord were inappropriate, as there was no evidence to support this assertion. The landlord could have risked the insurers refusing the resident’s claim, due to seemingly attempting to pass on liability to the tenants. This was not reasonable, as there was no evidence to suggest that there had been a delay in reporting the repair. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s insurance claim constitutes a failing in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak to the resident’s property, its lack of maintenance to the building’s pipework and the compensation amount offered.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated insurance claim.

Orders

24. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the resident is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £587.50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to provide an effective repairs service. This is inclusive of the amounts offered in its complaint response.
    2. Pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the inappropriate handling of her insurance claim.
    3. Pay the resident £360 (£200 for electrics, £160 for the pipe) for the actual costs she sustained for unblocking the pipe and checking the property electrics.
    4. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

25. The landlord should create a maintenance policy for maintaining the pipework at the property, to ensure that it is properly meeting its contractual obligations.