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

London Borough of Enfield (202218063)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218063

London Borough of Enfield

28 March 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 response to the resident’s re-housing request.
    2. The landlord’s response to reports of a leak into the property and the associated damp and mould.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives with their partner and 2 children. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette, located on the top floor of a 9-floor block. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. On 12 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report water leaking through the ceiling in their bedroom. They stated this was an ongoing issue and the damage to their bedroom and their children’s bedroom was getting worse.
  3. On 1 March 2021 and 1 November 2021 the landlord surveyed the property. These surveys confirmed the leak might have been coming from the roof of the block. The landlord raised works orders to inspect and repair the roof.
  4. Throughout 2021 and early 2022 the resident remained in contact with the landlord. On multiple occasions, they advised the landlord the leak was ongoing and chased updates on the repairs, as well as their previous emails.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint on 24 February 2022 about the lack of lasting repair to the roof and the level of updates they had received.
  6. The landlord visited the resident in March 2022 to view the water damage in the property. It also viewed the damp and mould that had been caused.
  7. The landlord completed the repair to the roof on 11 April 2022. It attended the property on 21 April 2022 to repair water-damaged brickwork and to carry out mould treatment in the kitchen.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2022. The landlord stated it would undertake a further inspection to trace the source of the leak.
  9. The landlord inspected the roof on 26 July 2002. It identified a damp patch in a water tank room. It raised a works order on 16 September 2022 to carry out repairs.
  10. On 2 September 2022 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. Between 15 November 2022 and 17 March 2023 the MP wrote to the landlord several times to advise the leak was ongoing and to chase the stage 2 complaint response.
  11. In October 2022 the landlord raised a works order to clean the vent and soil pipe. It states it did this work on 2 November 2022.
  12. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 30 March 2023. It advised that tracing the cause of the leak had been intensive with several sources identified. It stated repairs had taken place and it understood the leak had stopped. It offered £500 compensation for delays in completing the repairs.
  13. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. They confirmed to this service on 31 May 2023 that they wished to escalate their complaint.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

  1. The resident reported further leaks in the same areas of their property. The landlord made further attempts to undertake a permanent repair. These were not successful. The landlord decided in November 2023 that it would pass the matter to its major works team as the roof was beyond repair and needed to be replaced.
  2. The landlord has also advised this service that major regeneration works are due to be carried out on the block as the properties and roof have reached the end of life. It appears this is still at the planning application stage.
  3. The resident advised this service on 29 January 2024 that the roof was still in disrepair and the ongoing complaint had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can consider is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Under paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme the Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints about councils unless they are acting as a social landlord or a landlord under a long lease. The Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints about councils where they are exercising statutory functions not related to it managing properties.
  3. Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6.
  4. Since the resident’s request to be rehoused falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) because they have reasonable preference, the Housing Ombudsman cannot review it. As a result, this element of the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has noted the resident has reported leaks into their property dating back several years. This investigation, however, has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from January 2021 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords promptly. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak into the property and the associated damp and mould.

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete urgent repairs in 5 days, routine repairs in 30 days, and planned repairs in 90 days. It states repairs for water penetration to habitable areas are ‘urgent’ for a temporary fix and ‘routine’ for the full repair. It further states repairs to roofs are ‘routine’ or ‘planned’.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial report of the leak on 11 February 2021. This was 31 days after the resident reported the issue. It raised a works order for repairs to the roof on 28 October 2021. It completed this repair work on 11 April 2022. This was 455 days after the resident’s initial report. This was significantly outside the timescales set out in its repair policy.
  3. There is no clear explanation for the delay in raising the works order or completing the repair. The evidence provided to this service indicates there were mistakes made over dates the landlord told the resident it would be attending, the landlord not informing the resident of appointments, and issues with access to the roof. This would suggest the landlord may have an issue with record keeping as well as knowledge and information management. The Ombudsman has recommended below that the landlord review our ‘Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management’.
  4. There is no evidence that the landlord was routinely keeping the resident updated on the progress of the repair. This would have been a reasonable step to take and would have demonstrated to the resident that the landlord was taking their reports seriously.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated it would attend to pre-inspect and attempt to trace the source of the leak. There was no reference made to the recent roof repair. It stated once the pre-inspection had taken place it would be able to determine the works required for a permanent fix and carry out remedial works on the water damage. This was not an appropriate response. The landlord should have completed these actions while considering the complaint. It would have then been able to tell the resident how it was going to resolve the outstanding issues in its response.
  6. The landlord did provide an apology for the length of time it took to resolve the leak and for the inconvenience it caused. It also advised the resident that if they provided costs and/or proof of purchase for damaged bedding it would investigate providing compensation. This was a reasonable offer to make.
  7. There was a delay of 53 days between identifying the need for repairs in the water tank room and raising a works order. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord raised the works order on the same day that it sent its first response to the resident’s MP. It is reasonable to conclude that it was providing this response that triggered the landlord to raise the work order. This raises further concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response only apologised for the delay in replying. It would have been appropriate to have provided a wider apology covering the delays in repairs as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  9. The landlord provided details of the repairs steps it had taken. However, it did not acknowledge or explain the length of time it had taken. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recognised this failure and explained what actions it would be taking to ensure similar failings did not occur for future repairs.
  10. The Ombudsman accepts it can sometimes take more than one attempt to resolve repair issues, such as leaks because it is not always possible to immediately identify the cause of the problem. However, the landlord should have kept the resident regularly updated on the progress of repairs. It also should have ensured it raised works orders promptly and scheduled works to take place within its stated timescales.
  11. The landlord stated it had arranged mould treatment for the bedroom but that it was on hold until it had repaired the ceiling in the property. This was a reasonable approach to take.
  12. The landlord offered £500 in compensation for the delays over 17 months. It stated this period was from June 2021 to November 2022. This was not appropriate. The resident first raised the issue in January 2021 and the landlord acknowledged there were still ongoing repairs to take place (it stated repairs were booked for 27 April 2023). The offered compensation should therefore have covered this period.
  13. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if it assesses a room has become uninhabitable due to damage or condition it will pay compensation. For a bedroom, the compensation is 10% of the weekly rent. The resident reported needing to sleep under plastic sheeting to protect their bedding or sleep in their living room. They stated the leak had left an ‘offensive’ smell in the bedroom. In the Ombudsman’s view, it is reasonable to assess that the resident’s bedroom was uninhabitable while this matter was ongoing. The Ombudsman therefore considers it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have calculated the offered compensation on this basis. This would have led to a compensation figure of approximately £1,125.
  14. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether it would have been appropriate to move the resident out of the property while the leak was ongoing. This would have been a reasonable step to have taken. While moving the resident to alternative accommodation is a decision for the landlord to make, it would have potentially mitigated the impact of the leak on the resident and meant the landlord would not have needed to agree access for repairs. It may also have allowed more intensive inspections (which could entail temporary damage to the ceiling or walls) or repairs to take place.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy stated it had a 2-stage complaints process with responses due within 10 working days at stage 1 and 30 working days at stage 2. Both timescales were from the acknowledgement of the complaint. The policy stated it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 3 working days and stage 2 in 5 working days.
  2. The landlord assessed itself against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in September 2022. This assessment recorded it had updated its stage 2 process to a response within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord took 67 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint and a further 21 working days to issue its response. It took 65 working days to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint and a further 82 working days to issue its response. None of these timescales were appropriate or in line with its policy. These delays will have added to the resident’s distress and frustration.
  4. Neither complaint response specifically acknowledged the delays or provided any explanation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise and apologise for these failings separately from the ongoing repairs. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to demonstrate that it had a customer-focused approach.
  5. The landlord has not offered any compensation about its complaint handling. In the Ombudsman’s view, this is unreasonable. The Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay an additional £150 for the further distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s re-housing request is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of a leak into the property and the associated damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from someone in the senior management team.
    2. Carry out an independent structural survey of the property, with the resident’s consent, to trace the source of the leak and produce a report.
      1. The report must set out what further works/repairs are necessary to provide a lasting repair.
      2. It must include date-stamped photographs.
      3. A timescale for those works to be completed.
      4. Within 5 days of the survey the landlord must provide a copy of this survey and a schedule of works to the resident and this service.
      5. The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure that all identified works are carried out within 56 days of the date of the survey. The landlord must create and maintain records to demonstrate to the Ombudsman what endeavours it has taken to have the works completed.
      6. If the landlord is unable to complete the works within 56 days of the date of the survey it must agree on a time-specific action plan with the resident for any outstanding works.
    3. Consider its position on whether to move the resident out of the property while the leak is ongoing.
      1. Any temporary move should last until it and the resident agree that a lasting repair has been completed.
      2. Any move should be discussed and agreed with the resident before it takes place.
    4. If it considers a permanent move is appropriate then, while the current property is void, it must assess what sort of lasting repair can be made to ensure any subsequent residents are not impacted by the same issue.
    5. Pay the resident compensation of £1900 which is comprised of:
      1. £1750 compensation for the impact of the leak and associated damp and mould. This is based on the landlord’s compensation policy (as outlined in paragraphs 33 and 34) and the time passed between January 2021 and the date of this determination.
      2. £150 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the delays.
    6. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account, unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews the Complaint Handling Code 2024 and consider what steps it needs to take to ensure compliance when the new Code (2024) becomes statutory on 1 April 2024.
  2. The landlord should review its record-keeping procedures with a particular emphasis on repair logs and records. It should consider its knowledge and information management and satisfy itself that it has sufficient processes in place to assist with effective repairs and complaint handling.