London Borough of Newham (202103663)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103663

Newham Council

13 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 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s report of an ongoing leak.
2. complaint handling.
This investigation will also consider landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the leaseholder, and the landlord is the freeholder. The resident has owned the 1 bedroom ground floor flat since 1996. The landlord is a local authority. The flat is rented out by the resident to a private tenant (the tenant).
Whilst the original copy of the lease agreement was not provided as it was archived in storage, a sample copy was offered to this service by the landlord. The lease confirmed that the landlord was liable for insuring and keeping insured, the building under a comprehensive policy, and for maintenance and repairs of the estate including communal and external parts such as roof, internal and external walls, timbers, sewers and boilers and heating and hot water apparatus not part of the demised premises (resident’s flat).
According to the lease, the resident is responsible for contents insurance, internal repairs, flooring, and walls within the demised premises (her flat).
At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a 3 stage complaints policy. It would acknowledge the communication within 2 days and assess if it were a:
1. service request or an enquiry – and if expectations were not met it could proceed to a stage 2 review
2. stage 1 complaint

i) early resolution – actions to resolve the situation were to take place within 20 working days

ii) investigation – a response would be provided within 20 working days.

stage 2 corporate complaint review – if the decision at stage 1 was not agreed with, a review could be requested. A response would be provided within 15 days.
it is noted that the landlord’s current complaints policy now complies with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

A repairs policy or procedure was not provided to this service, nor could one be found on the landlord’s website.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
1. incurred costs – if there are clearly defined, and evidenced, costs to the complainant due to something the landlord has done/not done etc. proof of purchase is normally required
2. time and trouble – are not the same as delay and distress. It is to reflect difficulty and time consuming activities on the part of the complainant in dealing with the practicalities of the issue or the inconvenience, of following up the issue multiple times. Suggested payments are £50 to £150 from low (1-2 months) to high (4 or more months) impact
3. delay and distress – more serious than time and trouble. This is where the delay and/or distress caused by the failure has an appreciable to significant effect on the anxiety, frustration, and annoyance of those concerned, and/or has caused a great deal of uncertainty. Suggested payments in the range of £50 to £150 for low to moderate impacts, rising to £400-£500 in very significant or exceptional cases
4. risk of /harm – where there is clear personal injury and/or additional evidence is required to prove the extent of the harm. Suggested payments in the range of £75 to £250 for low to moderate impacts, rising to £500-£600 in very significant, exceptional, or prolonged cases and/or actual harm took place
On 23 March 2020, the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020, and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. While schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the ‘stay at home’ order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021, most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under this legislation. They are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.

Scope of investigation

As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested a refund of the service charges that she had paid for services that she had not received. However, the Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge. This is in line with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Nevertheless, this service can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair, and reasonable.
Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the complainant would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case.

Summary of events

According to the resident, there was a leak into the property in 2018 which the resident dealt with accordingly and rectified the damage to her flat herself. The resident reported the second leak into the property, to her landlord in June 2019. It was coming from above, damaging the same area as the leak in 2018. Whilst it had been fixed according to the landlord, the leaks re-occurred again in July and August 2019.
The landlord submitted as part of this investigation, a copy of a page of its repairs schedule that identified an overnight callout for a related leak on 10 July 2019. An abortive call out was showing on the schedule for 11 July 2019, but as only a proportion of the schedule was provided, the reason for it being aborted was not evidenced. An inspection request was raised on the landlord’s repair schedule on 24 July 2019.
The resident raised a further report on 24 October 2019 asking for an update, as whilst some investigations into the leak had been carried out, she was unsure if it had resolved the issue.
On 24 January 2020, the landlord sent an email to the resident following receipt of her numerous emails during October and November 2019 chasing a response for an update on the repairs. The landlord advised that urgent repairs had been authorised, apologised for the delay, and provided contact details if she required any further updates. The resident emailed the landlord again on 30 June 2020, advising that her wall and the leak were worse, with another leak from the ceiling creating further concerns due to the electrics being affected and the potential of the ceiling collapsing.
No evidence was provided by either party with regards to communication between the resident and the landlord from January 2020 to February 2021, bar the email from the resident to the landlord on 30 June 2020 chasing for an update. Having spoken to the resident in September 2023, she advised this service that due to covid and other commitments, she had not chased the landlord for completion of the repairs to her damaged property as she should have. The resident advised that It had been left to dry out as she had previously completed repair works from the leak in 2018, which were now ruined following the repetitive leaks in 2019. She had been advised by the landlord that it would notify her once the leak had been fixed so that it could complete the internal repairs to her flat.
The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 24 February 2021, which was passed to the landlord’s legal team. According to the resident the letter has remained unanswered to date. The letter advised the landlord that:
1. leaks first occurred in 2018, but was dealt with by the resident with regards to the decorative repairs
2. despite the landlord reporting that the leak had been repaired on 12 June 2019, the leaks re-occurred
3. on 10 July 2019, a further leak was reported to the landlord, who advised on 28 July 2019, that it would appoint a plumber to source the leak
4. the leak reoccurred in August 2019 and the resident continuously chased the landlord for a resolution.
5. The solicitor requested:
  1. the source of the leak to be investigated
  2. a copy of the report confirming the source
  3. an undertaking of urgent repairs being completed
  4. confirmation that the leak was repaired “once and for all”
6. it included with the letter
  1. invoices totalling £3150 for repairs and a request for payment for a total of £5199.95 for costs the resident would incur to rectify the damage
  2. photographs of the damage which identified mould, damp, and crumbling/peeling plaster on the walls.
A neighbouring flat in the building reported a leak as an emergency repair on 26 April 2021. This was confirmed in an internal email from the landlord dated 16 July 2021, and deemed to be the source of the leak into the resident’s property. It advised that it was due to the rainwater stack not being able to drain away standing water.
On 14 May 2021, the resident raised a complaint via the landlord’s website, due to ongoing problems with her landlord. The landlord emailed the resident on 18 May 2021, requesting confirmation of the leasehold address, and where the leak was coming from. It advised that the 20 day response time for the complaint would not start until the additional information had been received.
The resident responded on 19 May 2021, confirming that her complaint was regarding the ongoing leaks from above. The resident also requested copies of her updated complaint, as it initially started 2 years ago, and she wanted to send the Ombudsman a copy. As a resolution the resident wanted:
1. the leak to be fixed
2. re-imbursement for the cost of rectifying the repairs
3. re-imbursement for incurred costs such as solicitors fees
4. adjustment of the service charge she had paid to compensate the lack of service received
5. compensation for the time and stress caused trying to rectify the matter
6. compensation due to the resident’s tenants having to live in a property with a leak and the associated health and safety implications when mould and damp were found in the property.
A stage 1 response was emailed to the resident on 26 May 2021. It stated that:
1. it apologised for the delay in responding but could not find the resident’s address, but it had recognised the properties that had been listed where the leak was potentially coming from
2. it had arranged for an inspection to take place on 3 June 2021
3. with regards to the resident’s requests for compensation and costs, residents were expected to have 3rd party insurance, but she could complete an incident report if she did not have this, and could make a claim for any additional costs occurred
4. she could register her claim so that it could be assessed by its insurers and provided the contact details
5. once the inspection had taken place it would update her
6. a review could be asked for if she did not agree with the decision.
On 21 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord for an update as she had not received a response to her stage 1 complaint. As the leak was still not fixed, she requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2.
In an internal email from the landlord dated 16 July 2021, findings of the inspection on 3 June 2021 were shared. Following the leak reported on 26 April 2021, it confirmed that the cause was due to blockages within the drainage above, affecting the duct. It had caused water damage to the plaster and decoration in the resident’s flat. It also clarified that the resident had been advised to submit a claim to her own insurance provider to rectify the cosmetic damage. Photographs of the damage to the wall taken at the inspection were attached to the email.
On 19 July 2021, the landlord’s notes state that an email was sent to the resident advising of the inspection results of 3 June 2021, and detailed the causation of the leak, as noted in the paragraph above. It stated that it had tested the wall in the resident’s property which was recorded as dry, according to the damp meter reading. As this had caused water damage to her property, she was advised to claim through the leasehold insurance.
On 26 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord requesting a copy of the surveyor’s report. She advised that another leak had occurred and wanted to know who to report this to. The resident asked for an update on her stage 2 escalation and said that she would submit her insurance claim in due course.
On 24 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord requesting an update on her complaint. A copy of her request was forwarded to the landlord again on 6 October 2021, as she had still not received a response and the leak was now causing further damp in the property. The resident requested
1. a copy of the report to establish what works were to be carried out
2. the timeline for the repairs completion
3. a response to her ‘insurance’ claim.
On the 7 October 2021, the resident sent an email to her tenants she:
1. apologised for the delay in resolving the problem
2. advised that her landlord had found the source of the leak, but not provided a schedule of works outlining completion times
3. said that an update would be provided as soon as she had one
4. confirmed that once the wall had dried out, arrangements would be made for the wall to be replastered.
On 15 October 2021, the resident contacted this service again as she had not received a response from the landlord. This service wrote to the landlord requesting a response to the escalation request within 20 working days.
On the same date, the resident received an email from her tenant, advising that if the leak had not been fixed within the next 10 days, rent would not be paid, and a claim for compensation would be made against her as the flat was deemed uninhabitable due to the leak from the flat above.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord’s notes state that the resident called saying that if it had not fixed the leak “she would not pay rent.” She had been chasing the repairs for months and that nothing had been done about the leak. She wanted to know how the issue could be resolved.
A stage 2 acknowledgement was sent to the resident on 22 October 2021 from the landlord via email, advising that a response should be provided by 5 November 2021.
On 22 October 2021, the landlord responded to a query from this service and confirmed that it had received the escalation request from the resident, but it was delayed in issuing a response. It aimed to have a decision by 5 November 2021.
On 10 November 2021, the landlord wrote to this service to advise that it was not able to respond to the complaint as the incorrect address had been provided. The address was clarified, and a response date of 1 December 2021 was estimated.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 November 2021, as she had still not received a response to her complaint.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 7 December 2022, following a conversation requesting copies of the documents “as discussed”. The resident sent the documents on the same day.
On 8 December 2021, an email was sent to the resident from the landlord, following an earlier call, to confirm an inspection at the property was arranged for 14 December 2021, and would be followed up by the appropriate team after the inspection. The email confirmed that the resident was to contact the insurance team to claim for decorative damage, and to be supplied with a humidifier. The resident was also advised that she may wish to claim compensation for other factors, such as stress and inconvenience in conjunction with her complaint that was being investigated by the complaints team.
A stage 2 response was provided by the landlord on 10 December 2021. It reported that it:
1. apologised for the lack of response to the resident’s solicitor’s letter but stated that it would respond
2. apologised for the time taken to respond
3. would respond to the claim for damaged contents once the leak had been rectified
4. would arrange for a surveyor to carry out an inspection on 14 December 2021 and a copy of the report would be sent to its legal team and the resident
5. the matter would be dealt with under a legal disrepair claim, and it was therefore unable to comment any further
6. the complaint was upheld, and an offer of £300 compensation was made. This consisted of £200 for complaint handling and £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 December 2021, stating that she was unhappy with the stage 2 response and would be referring the matter to this service. She advised that:
1. the leak was still ongoing and had been for 31 months
2. she had not received a copy of the surveyor’s report from the visit on 3 June 2021, nor the schedule of repairs as previously requested
3. a further visit was planned by a surveyor for 14 December 2022, and again requested copies of the report that confirmed the source of the leak, the schedule of repairs and completion details
4. she had been advised of “emails going back and forth” internally, as not 1 department of the landlord would take ownership of the problems raised.
An email from the surveyor to the landlord was sent on 20 December 2021 confirming the findings of an inspection to the resident’s property on 14 December 2021. There was evidence of historic water damage. The damp reading confirmed that there was a damp patch on the top part of the ‘duct’ to the ceiling indicating a new water ingress issue. Repairs were requested to form an access opening to the duct to fit a firesafe access cover, unblock the gulley in the walkway and to obtain quotes for a new rear canopy including flashing, above the resident’s window. The surveyor asked for the repairs to be treated as urgent. Photographs were attached showing the water damage to the plaster in the bedroom of the resident’s flat.
The resident called this service on 23 December 2021, as the landlord had failed to resolve the issues which had been ongoing for 31 months, with delays in obtaining any updates creating additional stress. She confirmed that her required outcome was:
1. for the leak to be fixed
2. compensation to reflect the delay and time and trouble
3. for the landlord to make good any internal damage to plaster and electrics due to delays in resolving the issues
4. confirmation that internal communications would improve within the landlord’s team in order to resolve the issue and avoid any further issue
5. any rent deduction provided to the tenants to be met by the landlord
6. reimbursement for previous costs for redecorating and legal costs already spent.
An email from a contractor to the landlord dated 12 January 2022, attached a photo of the completed roofing works “to date”. The photo was of the overhead canopy.
On 9 February 2022, the resident responded to correspondence from this service. She highlighted that an outside contractor had inspected the leak in December 2021, and established the cause almost straight away. The resident therefore questioned why it had taken so long for the landlord to resolve the issue in the first instance. She was advised that a copy of the report would be ready 2 days later but had not heard from the landlord since. The resident confirmed that the desired outcome was:
1. for compensation to reflect the delay, time and trouble caused
2. confirmation that communication between landlord departments would improve
3. to receive a copy of all repairs logged
4. copies of all surveyors reports
5. to receive a response to her solicitors letter
6. reimbursement for service charges paid, but not received.
The landlord contacted this service (letter undated) in response to this service’s request for information on 18 February 2022, where it was asked to provide copies of any correspondence or notices sent to the resident regarding its findings. The landlord advised that there was none. It also confirmed that there were no repairs outstanding.
On 14 March 2022, an email was sent by the landlord to the contractor, asking for a copy of the completion email for the works at the resident’s property. An updated email was sent the same day attaching copies of 2 emails. The first was a copy of the email sent on 12 January 2022 with the photograph attached as detailed in paragraph 39 above. The second advised that the communal external works were complete and that “a new fire rated 30mls ducting was supplied and fitted for the communal stack area in the bedroom”.
On 8 August 2023, the resident responded to an email from this service, to advise that she had not had any contact from the landlord since the last inspection in December 2021. As there had been no confirmation from the landlord that the leaks had been resolved, no works had been carried out. No compensation or response from the landlord’s legal team had been received either. The resident advised that she had given up chasing the landlord due to the stress and exhaustion she experienced having dealt with the issues since 2019.
In September 2023, the resident advised this service that she thought the wall had been dried for about 2 months now and was hoping to get the solution fixed, only to speak to the tenants in the last few weeks to find that there was water ingress from above once again. She confirmed that the landlord had been in contact over the last few weeks and believed that this was due to our contact with it. She was again waiting for the landlord to confirm when the leak would be fixed “once and for all,” and to hear from her claim regarding financial compensation to rectify the internal damage to the property.
On 8 September 2023, this service requested additional information from the landlord regarding an update on the repairs status, the insurance claim, and clarification with regards to the disrepair claim. To date no further information has been provided. Therefore, the investigation has been completed on the information currently held on file.

Assessment and findings

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

Whilst the leak first occurred in 2018 according to the resident, the issue was not reported to the landlord until the second leak in June 2019, followed by 2 further leaks in July and August 2019. This complaint will therefore be considered from June 2019, when first reported to the landlord.
The landlord confirmed that repairs were carried out to fix the leak on 12 June 2019. However, as no specific date was identified as to when the leak started or was reported to the landlord, this service was not able to establish a complete timeline for this repair or whether the landlord acted reasonably and fairly to resolve the leak at this point in the timeline.
Another leak was reported less than a month later, on 10 July 2019 causing further damage to the resident’s property. An inspection was raised on the repair schedule on 24 July 2019. It was not until 28 July 2019, that the landlord confirmed that it would appoint a plumber to source the leak. This was not appropriate. This was 13 working days after the leak was initially reported, and an appointment for the plumber/repair was yet to be made. Leaks should be allocated as a priority repair with a rapid response time. However, this service was not able to measure this against the landlords repairs policy as this was not provided, nor could it be located on its website. A further leak was reported in August 2019, which would indicate that the leak was not repaired. No evidence has been provided to state otherwise. This caused additional distress to the resident as the leak continued to damage the property, and delayed any cosmetic repairs as the wall needed to have dried out before decorative works could commence.
A copy of the landlord’s repair policy was not provided to this service, and no evidence of one could be found on the landlord’s website. This is not appropriate. Whilst information on the landlord’s website provides clarity on whose responsibility it is for certain repairs; no information could be found for timelines for repairs to be completed. This information should be provided as landlords are expected to complete repairs in a “reasonable timescale” and whilst this is not defined in legislation, targets provided give a strong indication of what is to be considered a reasonable time. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on repair complaints, identified that where complex or extensive work is required, landlords should acknowledge that there are outstanding repairs, explain what action will be taken and provide timescales, even if they are provisional. It also says that it may be appropriate to explain whether compensation will be considered once the works have finally been completed.
On 24 February 2021, the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord requesting an update on the repairs within 21 days. The resident should not have had to employ a solicitor to obtain an update from the landlord with instructions to have the leak resolved. The landlord had a legal obligation to establish the source of the leak and arrange for the repairs to be completed under the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The resident should not have incurred a financial burden to enforce the landlord to fulfil its legal obligations. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have monitored the situation fully to ensure that a long term resolution was sought with regards to the leak.
The solicitor’s letter dated 24 February 2021, clearly states that mould and damp were evident at the property, due to the leak. The first evidence that this service has of this being investigated, is from the landlord’s stage 1 response on 21 May 2021, when it mentions that an inspection would be carried out in June 2021. This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould says landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents.
According to the solicitor’s letter of 24 February 2021, the resident continuously chased the landlord for the leak to be rectified. Evidence has been provided of update request emails being sent by the resident in October and November 2019 which the landlord replied to on 24 January 2020 when it confirmed that it had authorised urgent repairs. However, the resident chased this again on 30 June 2020, as the leak and the damage to her property was getting worse. This was not appropriate.
Due to the lack of the landlord’s repair schedule, this service is not able to establish what interim or permanent repairs the landlord had completed. Either way, the leak was ongoing from June 2019 to June 2020. If remedial works were completed, they were not successful, and a more permanent resolution should have been sorted. This service has not been provided with any information to support the landlord’s handling of the repairs, or its proposed resolutions, and according to the resident the leak is ongoing to date.
According to the resident, and the solicitor’s letter, the request for reimbursement in February 2021 had not been responded to. In the stage 2 response dated 10 December 2021, the landlord apologised and stated that it would respond. This ‘holding’ response was 204 working days after the solicitor letter was sent to the landlord. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have kept the resident updated throughout the timeline of the leaks, despite covid restrictions. It should have detailed the arrangements being made to diagnose the source of the leak and provided timelines for the repairs. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she was not aware of the current situation with regards to the repair, or if the leak had been resolved “once and for all” and had to continue to chase the landlord for an update.
According to the landlord a further leak problem was reported by a neighbour as an emergency repair on 26 April 2021, and the stack was cleared on 3 June 2021. However, the resident chased the landlord on 21 June 2021 as the leak was still ongoing. This was 38 working days after the leak was reported by the neighbour, with it occurring again in July and August 2021. This was not appropriate. Whilst remedial repairs are appropriate in the short term, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out a more thorough inspection to diagnose the cause and ensure to ensure a prompt permanent resolution was found as a matter of urgency. This is particularly relevant when a leak is behind a stack wall and can impact several properties if in a block of flats.
The leak was reported in June 2019, and whilst there is limited information regarding the leak repairs between August 2019 to February 2021, what is evident nor disputed, is that the issue was not fully resolved. Following inspections in April 2021, due to a neighbour’s report of a leak and again on 3 June 2021, the surveyor reported that the cause of the leak was due to blockages in the drainage above. A further inspection was carried out on 14 December 2021, due to reports from the resident that the issue was not resolved. The surveyor’s findings confirmed that the issue was still in relation to the drainage above the resident’s flat, and the duct behind the wall in the bedroom. According to the resident in September 2023, the leak is still ongoing. This is not appropriate. Due to the landlord’s repairs schedule not being provided, this service is unable to confirm what repairs were carried out.
The resident was advised by the landlord in the stage 2 response dated 10 December 2021, that her disrepair claim had been passed to its legal team. This update was 204 working days following the solicitors letter. An internal email from the landlord suggests that the roofing works to the canopy were completed by 12 January 2022. According to the landlord’s letter dated 18 February 2022 there are no repairs outstanding. However, according to the resident no response had been received from the legal team on 30 August 2023 which was 637 working days following submission of the solicitor’s letter. This is not appropriate and has extended the resident’s distress, frustration, and inconvenience, as she has had to chase a response and refer the matter to this service due to lack of response.
There is clear evidence that the leak was not repaired by the landlord in a reasonable time frame, which breaches its repairing obligations. This failure obliges the landlord to put things right, both inside the property and to any communal areas or building structure parts it is responsible for. This could be achieved either via an insurance claim or for the works to be completed at its own expense. No evidence has been provided to suggest that a decision has been made or any steps taken to ensure this outcome. This is not appropriate. This has extended the resolution date at the detriment to the resident, causing additional distress and inconvenience.
The leaks into the resident’s property have been ongoing for over 5 years and have still not been fully resolved. The landlord has failed to respond to the resident’s request for the repairs to be completed within her property and for decorative restoration, or a financial settlement to pay towards rectifying the damage to date. It failed to respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner. There has been no update provided regarding her insurance claim, 2 years on, and she already paid for redecoration in 2018 following a previous leak.
An enhanced compensation payment has been awarded to the resident for the ongoing distress and inconvenience caused to her by the landlord’s failure to respond to the reports of the leaks into her property in a timely manner. This is to put right the landlord’s failure to:
1. resolve the leak once and for all
2. respond to the reports of damp and condensation in the property accordingly
3. communicate with the resident effectively and keep her updated
4. chase the insurance claim and provide an update to the resident
5. prevent a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and her tenants.
Overall, the landlord failed to provide the resident copies of the surveyor’s reports or keep her updated with details of the necessary repairs, timeframes, or completion of works in order to resolve the issue. The landlord did not meet its legal obligations with regards to the terms and conditions of its lease agreement, in that it is responsible for the maintenance and repairs of communal and external parts. The resident incurred additional financial costs by paying for a solicitor in an attempt to resolve the issue but to no avail. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an ongoing leak amount to severe maladministration.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 14 May 2021, and a stage 1 response was issued on 26 May 2021. This was within the timeline of the landlord’s complaints policy at stage 1. An escalation request was raised on 21 June 2021, with a response issued on 10 December 2021. This was not appropriate. It was 124 working days later and 109 working days outside of the landlord’s complaints policy. The resident requested updates in July, September, and October 2021, and had no communication at all from the landlord from 22 October 2021 to 7 December 2021, (32 working days) regarding her complaint. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience as she had to chase the landlord for responses to her complaints and updates with regards to the repairs throughout this period.
The escalation request was made on 21 June 2021. In order to adhere to its complaints policy, the landlord should have issued a response by 9 July 2021 (15 working days). The stage 2 acknowledgment on 22 October 2021, advised that a response would be issued by 5 November 2021. On 10 November 2021, the landlord wrote stating that it could not respond due to an incorrect address. If a response were expected by 9 July 2021, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to request and extension at this stage due to an incorrect address, not on 10 November 2021, 89 working days later. This was not appropriate, as whilst extensions can be requested, this should be for good reason. No reason was given for the delay between 9 July 2021 to 10 November 2021.
The stage 2 response issued on 10 December 2021, advised the resident that her solicitor would receive a response to the letter sent to the landlord on 24 February 2021. The resident has advised that no response has been received to date, which has not been disputed by the landlord. This initial response was 204 days after the request for information and was not reasonable. The landlord failed to adhere to its follow on actions it committed to in its stage 2 response. It left the resident waiting for a reply without guidance as to when this was likely to be received. This caused additional distress, frustration, and inconvenience to the resident.
The stage 2 response also said that the landlord would respond to the damage complaints once the repair had been rectified. According to the landlord’s letter to this service as detailed in paragraph 44 above, there were no outstanding repairs to the property. However, the resident had not received any confirmation that the repair had been completed nor an update regarding the damages claim. This was not appropriate. The remedy offered should clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate according to the Ombudsman’s CHC. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. This did not happen. It created additional distress and financial burden to the resident as no costs have been reimbursed by the landlord. It has also had a negative impact on the resident’s relationship with the landlord and her tenants.
The stage 2 response reported that the case was being dealt with under a legal disrepair case and therefore it was unable to comment any further. The resident confirmed to this service that she has not heard anything from the landlord further regarding this. This was not appropriate. It has caused confusion, as the resident was unsure if her claim was sent to the legal team to assess her ‘insurance’ claim regarding the disrepair she requested compensation for, or a legal remedy in court. This query remains outstanding.
At stage 2 the resident was offered £300 compensation. This equated to £200 for its poor complaint handling and £100 for the delay in escalating the stage 2 complaint. Whilst this is recognised as an offer of redress, this was not proportionate to the delays, distress and inconvenience caused by the impact of the landlord’s response to the complaint handling. Nor does it comply with the landlord’s compensation policy, which will consider offering between £400-£500, for delay and distress due to the significant impact it had on the resident.
The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code with regards to its stage 2 response, as it was 109 working days late in providing a decision. It failed to comply with its remedies detailed in both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses. It did not provide the resident copies of the surveyors reports as stated, keep the resident up to date with regards to the repair completion, nor its insurance claim process that it passed to its legal team as promised in the responses. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint amounts to maladministration.

Record keeping

Both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses were delayed due to the landlord not being able to clarify the address of the property being referred to in the complaint. This was not appropriate. The stage 1 response should not have been responded to at an incorrect address. The landlord’s records of 16 July 2021, confirm that the correct address was held on record. This evidences significant failures and concerns with regards to the landlord’s record keeping systems and procedures. It is recognised that an error was made by the resident regarding the number of the flat, but this was clarified on 16 November 2021. The landlord’s records should have been kept updated accordingly.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord refers to a ‘chat’ with the resident, however no detailed evidence was provided with regards to this discussion. Whilst a chronology of events was provided by the landlord and emails from the resident are referred to in the landlord’s evidence, many of these were not included as part of the information ‘bundle’ provided. This was not appropriate.
The stage 1 response was not initially provided to this service and had to be requested separately. A copy of the original lease was also not made available, as it was archived. This should have been easily accessible or retrievable, and if not, an electronic copy stored for ease of reference. No copies of the landlord’s repair schedule relevant to this complaint were provided bar a ‘snapshot’ of the reports of a leak in July 2021. Only copies of 1 email was received from the landlord between February 2020 – May 2021. It is unclear if this was all that was sent or due to poor record keeping. This was not appropriate.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair responses. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records can hinder the complaints process. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents working on behalf of the landlord. No evidence was provided to indicate this was or is happening.
Due to incorrect information held on file, the Stage 1 response was issued to the incorrect address. The stage 2 decision was late as it advised the landlord was unable to locate the correct address, despite this being held on file already. Evidence is missing from the ‘bundle’ of documents provided by the landlord and dates of issued documents were recorded incorrectly. No copies of the surveyor’s reports were sent to the resident despite numerous requests, and there is very limited information provided during 2020-2021 in the midst of the timeline of this complaint. The lease agreement was also not provided nor was a copy of the repairs schedule. The landlord’s record keeping amounts to severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord with regards to its handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with regards to its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord with regards to its record keeping.

Reasons

The leaks into the resident’s property have been ongoing for over 5 years and have still not been fully resolved. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for the repairs in a reasonable timespan, nor decorative restoration, or a financial settlement to pay towards rectifying the damage or resolve the insurance claim passed to its insurers. The landlord did not meet its legal obligations with regards to the terms and conditions of the lease.
The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code with regards to its stage 2 response. It failed to comply with its remedies detailed in both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses. It did not provide the resident copies of the surveyors reports as stated, nor keep the resident up to date with regards to the repair completion, nor its insurance claim process that it passed to its legal team as advised as part of its remedies.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to an incorrect property. A late response at stage 2 was issued despite the correct information being held on file. Information regarding conversations with the resident were not provided. No lease agreement, surveyors reports, nor repairs schedules were provided despite requests from this Service for these to be provided.

Orders and recommendations

A senior officer is to issue the resident with a written apology within 4 weeks. It should recognise the landlord’s inappropriate delays and its failure to complete the repair “once and for all.” As well as its lack of engagement with the resident with regards to timelines and expectations for resolutions. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the letter.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1400 in compensation within 4 weeks. The £300 compensation previously offered is to be deducted from this amount, if already paid. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears if accrued. The compensation comprises:
1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the poor handling of the ongoing leaks.
2. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the way it handled the repairs in this case, to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. The review should include consideration of the landlord’s processes and procedures it has in place to ensure that:
1. it maintains oversight of damp and mould cases
2. repairs are completed within a reasonable timescale, especially when damp and mould are evidenced
3. the repairs it carries out are effective and lasting repairs which resolve the issue and are completed within appropriate timescales
4. complaints are acknowledged and responded to in line with its complaints policy
5. there is an effective mechanism in place to record and store surveyors and other specialist reports
6. the landlord is to cascade its review findings to relevant staff for improvement purposes and include reference to the Ombudsman’s October 2022 Spotlight report on damp and mould, the Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight report on repair complaints and the Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight report on KIM.
The landlord is to arrange a full inspection of the property with a specialised surveyor, regarding the mould and damp, and to source the leak with a long term repair resolution. This must be carried out within 4 weeks. It will then write to the resident within 2 weeks of receipt of the surveyor’s report setting out:
1. what it has identified as the cause of the leak
2. what works have been carried out to date
3. what further works are required
4. a timeline for when those further works will be carried out and completed.
The landlord is to arrange for the redecoration including a fungi wash for the bedroom. The decoration works are to commence within 4 weeks of the wall being deemed dry and the repair permanently fixed for the near future.
The landlord is to provide training on the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on damp and mould, KIM, and repair complaints to provide further insight to its employees on good working practices as recommended by this service
The landlord to write to the resident with regards an update on the insurance claim process. The letter should clarify the action being taken and provide updates each month until a final decision has been made. If the insurance claim is not successful, the landlord is to ensure that the resident is fairly compensated for any works previously paid for and evidenced, with regards to the damage caused by the ongoing leak.
The landlord is to reply to this service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.