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

London Borough of Newham (202217014)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217014

London Borough of Newham

20 February 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 the landlord’s response to a leak, remedial repairs, and damage caused by the leak.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2013. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a high rise block containing 123 flats over 21 floors.
  2. The tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. The landlord’s responsibilities include: maintaining the structure, outside and shared areas of the property; maintaining the installations for supplying water, gas, electricity and sanitation; and carrying out repairs that it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time. The tenant’s responsibilities include: informing the landlord of any repair or maintenance that is needed in the structure or outside of the property, block or building, or any installation for which it is responsible; and allowing the landlord access to complete repairs and inspections.
  3. The repairs section of the landlord’s website, to which it directed this Service when asked to provide a copy of its repairs policy, refers to emergency out-of-hours repairs that are “very urgent … and cannot wait until the next working day”. While the website notes that the landlord may carry out a temporary repair until it can complete a full repair during normal working hours, it does not provide a target timescale for completion of emergency repairs. It also does not provide a target timescale for routine repairs, or any other category of repair. The website states that emergency repairs include leaks where “the water cannot be turned off or the leak contained” or where the leak is “affecting the electrics or another property”, and other repairs where there is “dirty water back-surging from plug holes, toilets or other drainage” or where “an unsafe electrical fitting is sparking or smoking”. Tenants are advised to report a repair as an emergency if the issue poses a danger to their health and safety.
  4. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its corporate complaints policy states that it will respond to complaints about services delivered to a tenant within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that a decision to pay compensation is usually the result of a formal complaint. Compensation may be paid where there has been “clear service failure, delay, injustice, effect or costs incurred”. The landlord will make awards of between £40 per month and £150 per month for loss of amenity, in situations “that have a continuing effect upon quality of life within a property [such as] fear, lack of sleep, lack of independence, or displacement” due to its action or inaction. It will also award between £50 and £500 for delay and distress, depending on the level of impact.
  6. When the landlord provided information to this Service in June 2023, it included a draft damp and mould strategy and action plan on which it was consulting. This document sets out the actions the landlord is taking to tackle damp and mould in its properties, the private rental sector and temporary accommodation. In respect of its own properties, the landlord commits to respond effectively to reports of damp and mould by responding to enquiries through its damp and mould taskforce, aiming to resolve issues the first time, setting up effective referral and reporting mechanisms, and upskilling its staff. It also commits to improve its use of data, invest in its stock, and focus on vulnerable groups.

Summary of events

  1. On 6 October 2020 the landlord raised a work order to inspect the plasterboard in the bathroom and kitchen of the property following a leak in a neighbouring property. On 30 April 2021 it raised a further work order for its contractor to unblock the toilet in the property due to overflow from other properties. The toilet repair was completed on 6 May 2021, and works associated with the inspection of the bathroom and kitchen plasterboard were completed on 23 July 2021.
  2. On 12 May 2022 the landlord attended an out-of-hours report of issues relating to “excrement going into the resident’s bathroom walls from other flats”. It addressed this on the same day by fitting a new syphon. It also raised a work order for repair of the ceiling due to previous leaks. On 16 May 2022 the landlord inspected the leaking soil stack and bathroom ceiling, and on 25 May 2022 it raised a work order to repair the leaking stack at 3 locations in the building. It also replastered the resident’s bathroom ceiling on 31 May 2022. However, as the leak was found to be ongoing, it arranged for a plumber to complete the necessary works to fix a leak in the property above. The landlord’s records indicate that remedial works to rectify the leak were raised on 26 September 2022 and carried out on 13 October 2022. The works to the leaking stack were recorded as complete on 15 November 2022.
  3. On 14 October 2022 the resident complained to the landlord, stating that:
    1. Her property had been affected by a leak from a neighbouring property between 2015 and 2021.
    2. The leak had caused damage to her bathroom and kitchen.
    3. Each time leak repairs were carried out, she had paid for redecoration.
    4. Over the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, the leak had got worse. The landlord refused to fix the issue until 2022 when her ceiling collapsed and fell on her head.
    5. The problem in her neighbour’s property had now been fixed and the tenants had been moved out, but her ceiling continued to leak.
    6. In 2020 a second leak began in an upstairs flat, but the landlord refused to fix it. In August 2022 the landlord repaired her ceiling but did not fix the leak itself. The ceiling had now fallen out again (in September 2022) and the leak was getting worse.
    7. She could not use her toilet at all and had had to use a bucket all year because of the issues in her bathroom.
    8. She had contracted a chest infection and skin rash because of the water dripping from the pipes. The water was yellow with “dark soil dropping”.
    9. Since January 2021, there had been a leak in her kitchen cupboard where the electrical wires were. She believed this was dangerous, but “no one seems to care or [has] tried to resolve the problem”.
    10. The situation had caused her stress and discomfort.
    11. She would like the leak issue to be resolved, compensation for the expense and distress caused, and a move to a different property.
  4. On 18 October 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s building to inspect the flats above hers in relation to the soil stack leak. On 19 October 2022 it provided a chemical toilet to the resident as the toilet in her property was not usable due to the leak. On 20 October 2022, an internal email by the landlord noted this situation and that its operative had reported that access to one of the properties above the resident’s was required. The landlord had attended the property in question and left a calling card.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 October 2022 and said it would respond by 28 October 2022. An internal email sent by the landlord on the same day stated that the resident was finding it difficult to go to the toilet as a result of the leak and that she said this was “really affecting her health”. The email enquired when someone could visit to find the source of the leak and carry out the necessary repairs, as “this is a continuous problem”. A further update later on 25 October 2022 noted that the landlord had spoken to the occupant of a property above the resident’s, who said an operative had visited their property that day and concluded that the leak was coming from above their property.
  6. On 1 and/or 2 November 2022 the landlord inspected all affected flats to investigate any other potential leaks. On 2 November 2022 the resident contacted this Service for advice, as she had not received a stage 1 response to her complaint. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord the same day (2 November 2022) and asked it to respond to the complaint. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 3 November 2022, stating that:
    1. It apologised for the length of time taken for it to investigate the resident’s concerns at stage 1.
    2. Following its investigation, it upheld her complaint in relation to leaks from properties above which caused damage to her bathroom and kitchen.
    3. It confirmed that the leak to neighbouring properties had been fixed, and an appointment had been booked for that day (3 November 2022) for its surveyor to complete an inspection. Any repairs would then be carried out afterwards.
    4. It appreciated the matter had been ongoing for some time, and felt it was appropriate to award compensation. It agreed there had been a service failure in how it handled the issues raised. It offered the resident £150, comprising:
      1. £100 for the delay and inconvenience she experienced due to the leaks;
      2. £50 for the delay in providing its stage 1 response.
    5. If the resident remained unhappy, she could ask to have her complaint reviewed at stage 2 by another officer. It would then respond within 20 working days.
  7. Also on 3 November 2022, the resident informed this Service that the electrics in her property were now being affected by the leaks, with water dripping into the switches. She said she was worried she would get electrocuted. The landlord carried out an inspection and electrical repairs the same day, and subsequently raised a work order for the necessary remedial works to be completed by its contractor.
  8. On 10 November 2022 the resident told the landlord she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, saying “I am still unsatisfied with the outcome”. On 11 November 2022 the landlord asked the resident what specifically she remained unhappy about. She replied the same day that the leak had still not been fixed and she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. The landlord accepted this and escalated the complaint on 11 November 2022. On 14 November 2022 it told the resident it would respond by 2 December 2022.
  9. An internal email by the landlord on 17 November 2022 stated that it had tendered the works to its contractors, and would issue the works to the winning tender once it had received all submissions on 23 November 2022.
  10. On 30 November 2022 the resident had further contact with this Service. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord the same day asking it to provide its stage 2 response by 9 December 2022. On 2 December 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to plan the remedial works required to the kitchen and to complete repairs to the bathroom ceiling. The landlord provided an update to this Service on 7 December 2022 and issued its stage 2 response on 8 December 2022, stating that:
    1. It apologised for the length of time taken for it to complete a formal investigation at stage 2.
    2. Following its investigation, it upheld the resident’s stage 2 complaint in relation to its delay in fixing leaks at the properties above, causing damage to her bathroom and kitchen.
    3. In investigating the complaint it had reviewed its correspondence with the resident and spoken to its repairs and maintenance team, its technical team, and its complaints team.
    4. It provided a summary of repair events to date. One of the latest items on the list, an inspection of all flats dated 1 November 2022, was noted to be a work in progress as access to multiple properties was required.
    5. It appeared that, while it had attended to resolve the issues reported, it did not establish the root cause of them. It apologised that this was the case.
    6. The resident had informed it that damage was caused to her property as a result of the leaks. In order to determine the remedial works required, its surveyor completed an inspection on 3 November 2022. Following the inspection the works were tendered to its contractor. It provided details of the assigned contractor, which attended on 2 December 2022 to plan some works and complete others. The contractor had returned on 8 December 2022 to commence further works.
    7. It was clear that it should not have taken as long as it did to resolve matters. It therefore felt it was appropriate to award compensation.
    8. Its complaints policy stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. While it was clear that there had been communication between itself and the resident about the issues raised in her complaint, this did not constitute a formal complaint response.
    9. It accepted that it did not provide an adequate resolution to the stage 1 complaint, and did not respond to the stage 2 complaint within the timeframe set out in its policy. This was unacceptable and it felt it was appropriate to award compensation.
    10. The resident had mentioned that she wished to be rehoused due to the issues she had experienced regarding leaks. It listed her options for rehousing, namely: joining the housing register as a transfer applicant; applying for a move on medical grounds; a direct application to Home Finder; or a mutual exchange.
    11. It agreed there had been a service failure in how it handled the issues raised. It offered the resident £1,000, comprising:
      1. £600 for its delay in resolving the bathroom leak;
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused;
      3. £100 for its delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
    12. It sincerely apologised for “any distress or inconvenience caused as a result of the identified service failure”.
    13. This was its final response. If the resident remained unhappy and wished to take the matter further, she could contact this Service.

Post complaint

  1. On the same day the landlord issued its stage 2 response (8 December 2022), the contractor sent the landlord a revised specification of works for its approval. It also requested an asbestos report for the property. The contractor then commenced remedial works to the bathroom, kitchen, bedroom and living room on 9 December 2022. Following a pre-inspection and partial completion of the works, the living room and bedroom works were left outstanding after the resident became unwell. The contractor was initially unable to make contact with her in order to confirm a new appointment.
  2. On 15 December 2022 the resident declined the landlord’s offer of compensation and told it her legal representative would be in touch. On 22 December 2022 the landlord raised a work order for its surveyor to carry out an inspection following a legal disrepair claim lodged by the resident. The landlord’s contractor rebooked the outstanding works for 16 January 2023, but the resident called to cancel the appointment on the day due to feeling unwell. She asked for it to be rebooked during the week beginning 23 January 2023. The contractor attempted to contact the resident on 19 and 20 January 2023 to confirm an appointment on 23 January 2023, but was unable to get through.
  3. On 23 January 2023 the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the property. The surveyor’s inspection report, dated 8 February 2023, stated that:
    1. There was evidence of a small area of dark mould to the living room ceiling at the top left corner of the window, and the affected area recorded damp readings. The reading suggested that there was still an active leak from the above or adjacent flat(s) affecting the ceiling and wall of the property. Slight condensation had formed in this area of ceiling, but it was not repairable until the leak had been located/resolved and the area had fully dried out.
    2. There was also brown staining to the wall below a plug socket outlet in the living room, due to the current leak affecting the metal electrical conduit concealed within the walls and ceiling and making it rusty. Readings showed that this area was dry.
    3. There was evidence of dark mould to the bedroom ceiling above the length of the window. The affected area recorded damp readings. This again suggested an active leak from surrounding flat(s).
    4. The kitchen had been refurbished in December 2022. There was therefore no evidence of previous issues including the sink unit and handles being rotten, plaster being damp, damaged wiring, and mould inside the cupboard. No further action was required in relation to the kitchen.
    5. There was no evidence of leaks in the bathroom or a collapsed ceiling. The bathroom leak and toilet back surge issue had been resolved in November 2022 and the collapsed ceiling had been repaired and decorated at this time. There was no evidence of damp walls or ceiling in the bathroom, although the readings recorded showed that the walls had not fully dried out from the leak.
    6. Some other issues were observed including a broken fixed glazed unit to the kitchen window, defective glazed units to the bedroom windows, areas of window frame with no mastic sealant, mould to the bath sealant, and a defective bath mixer lever tap. There was also evidence of silverfish activity, which could be due to damp flooring. This issue would be abated by the installation of a new bathroom.
    7. A schedule of repairs for internal works had been produced. This detailed the works required to each room and consisted of 28 items.
  4. On 1 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor attempted to inspect a neighbouring property in connection with the leak affecting the resident’s living room ceiling, but was unable to do so. On 2 March 2023 an internal email by the landlord stated that it had been granted access to inspect the leak, and that there were signs of water ingress within the neighbouring property. The occupant told the landlord that a new leak had stopped 2 weeks earlier and there had been no further water ingress to date, but moisture readings indicated that areas of the property were still damp. The landlord noted that as one of the leaks had stopped, the related works would be included when a contractor was allocated to complete the job.
  5. On 3 March 2023 a contractor was assigned to complete the works and provide a specification. An email from the landlord to the contractor stated that the leak affecting the resident’s living room would need to be investigated to determine the cause before works to the living room could be completed. It also stated that the kitchen leak had been resolved; this had appeared within the built-in kitchen cupboard affecting the ducting and wall. The landlord asked its contractor to make good any damaged ducting and decoration to the cupboard. The contractor confirmed receipt of the landlord’s instructions on 6 March 2023 and provided a schedule for the works due to begin that day. It noted that there was still leakage present in the living room ceiling area of the property, and said it would provide photos. No further update has been received by this Service to date, despite 6 requests for additional information in January and February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Under paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord within a reasonable period (normally 6 months of the matters arising). This investigation will therefore focus on events since 12 May 2022, although the resident’s claim that the property was affected by leaks between 2015 and 2021 has been taken into account.
  2. It is important to note that this Service does not consider complaints about damages and/or liability for damages. The Ombudsman also cannot determine whether a landlord’s action or inaction caused or exacerbated a health condition or injury. Such matters are better suited for investigation via an insurance claim or through the courts.

Leak, repairs and damage caused

  1. This has evidently been a complex and challenging matter for the landlord to resolve, with multiple leaks affecting multiple properties over a protracted period. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord does not own all of the flats surrounding the resident’s, which meant that it sometimes had to liaise with third parties in order to facilitate access. It is also generally accepted that more complicated repairs involving diagnostic works, periods of monitoring, tendering processes, multiple contractors and specialist reports may take longer than the landlord’s usual timeframe for non-emergency repairs. In this case, the landlord did not provide any target timeframes for repairs, but had a responsibility to carry out repairs “within a reasonable period of time”. It also had a duty under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to provide accommodation that was fit for human habitation, ie safe and free from health hazards.
  2. There is evidence within the information provided by the landlord that it took action in relation to leaks affecting the property in 2020 and 2021. Within the focal period of the current investigation, it responded promptly to an out-of-hours report made by the resident on 12 May 2022. It correctly identified this issue, which related to overflow of waste from toilets into the walls of the property, as an emergency repair and completed it the same day. This was an appropriate and timely response.
  3. It then appears that, after becoming aware of a soil stack leak affecting the property on 16 May 2022, the landlord carried out repairs to the resident’s ceiling on 31 May 2022. These repairs were premature as the root cause of the leak(s) had not yet been conclusively identified or fixed. The resident referred in her complaint to further ceiling repairs in August 2022, following which the ceiling “fell out again” in September 2022. These events are not documented in the repair records provided by the landlord, which refer only to “remedial works” raised in September 2022 and completed in October 2022. There is also no indication that the impact of the ongoing situation on the resident was considered, a risk assessment carried out, or a temporary decant explored. The living conditions described by the resident in her complaint – where she said she had had a ceiling “drop on her head”, was unable to use her toilet, and had developed health issues which she believed were due to dripping dirty water – were unacceptable. Though any injury or health impact would have been a matter for the landlord’s insurers, it should have signposted the resident appropriately, offered relevant support, and (if necessary) requested medical evidence. It also should have ensured that the accommodation it provided to the resident was habitable.
  4. The resident explicitly requested a house move on 14 October 2022, and in October and November 2022 expressed her concerns that the leak had penetrated the electrics in her property and made them unsafe. While it was appropriate for the landlord to complete electrical repairs and make renewed efforts to investigate the leak and contact the occupants of neighbouring properties in these months, it missed a further opportunity to consider a decant. There is also no evidence that it satisfied itself the electrics in the resident’s property were safe between 14 October 2022 and 3 November 2022; the only documentary evidence relating to the condition of the electrics is the inspection report dated 8 February 2023 which noted that “all electrics in the property are currently in working order”. Following the electrical repairs completed on 3 November 2022, the resident told this Service on 10 November 2022 that “the landlord has stated it has fixed the leak but it is ongoing”.
  5. Internal correspondence by the landlord following its inspection on 3 November 2022 appeared evasive: the stage 1 responder asked the surveyor on 11 November 2022 to “advise of your visit and what your findings and recommendations were”, but the surveyor’s response on 17 November 2022 simply stated that “I have tendered the works to the contractors and will have a response by 23 November 2022.” If there was other correspondence, this has not been supplied. The landlord did not address the resident’s request for rehousing in its stage 1 complaint response, and its stage 2 response referred only to routine rehousing options such as a mutual exchange or new housing application. This was unacceptable, and meant that the resident continued to live in potentially hazardous conditions.
  6. Following the inspection on 3 November 2022 and ensuing tender process, the landlord’s contractor began works on 2 December 2022. This was in line with the timescales expected for review of submissions and award of contract. It is accepted that the works progressed in December 2022 (including installation of a new kitchen) and were halted only when the resident reported feeling unwell. Since she also sought legal representation in this month, it is possible that she was acting in accordance with her legal representative’s advice in relation to access. Nevertheless, the landlord continued to investigate the source of the leak in January 2023. On 19 January 2023 its surveyor identified the source of the kitchen leak, but its records indicate that this was not fixed until 1 March 2023. This interval of 6 weeks was unsatisfactory, particularly given that the resident continued to live in a damp and mouldy property. Even when the landlord received its surveyor’s report on 8 February 2023, listing 28 repairs with a total cost of £5,463, there is no evidence that it considered moving the resident to more suitable temporary accommodation while the works were completed. Many of the works were intrusive – including skimming of ceilings, tiling, hacking and replastering of walls, redecoration, renewal of window units, and installation of a new bathroom and flooring – and, as they affected all rooms in the property, would have been disruptive for the resident.
  7. Despite providing an opportunity to supply additional information in January 2024, the Ombudsman has received no update from the landlord since June 2023, and no details of repair progress since March 2023. It is therefore unknown whether the leak was fully resolved.
  8. A finding of severe maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the leaks, repairs, and damage caused to the resident’s property. This is because, although the landlord admitted it delayed in resolving the leak issue and offered some redress for this, it did not resolve the issue effectively – either by completing prompt and lasting structural repairs, or by providing suitable alternative accommodation for the resident once it realised it was unable to resolve the issue quickly. Some of the repairs completed were cosmetic and served merely to disguise unresolved issues and impede the monitoring and diagnostic processes. The compensation offered in relation to the delayed leak repair (£100 at stage 1 and £900 at stage 2), though substantial, was disproportionately increased between complaint stages and did not follow the landlord’s policy of paying up to £150 per month for loss of amenity. Additional compensation has therefore been ordered which reflects the living conditions experienced by the resident over (at least) a 10-month period. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, a payment of £1,500 for loss of amenity is insufficient in the circumstances, and so this part of the amount ordered has been calculated at 50% of the resident’s rent throughout the period in question. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to pay the resident a further amount to account for any loss of amenity beyond March 2023.
  9. With regard to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord responded within 14 working days at stage 1 and 19 working days at stage 2. Though the stage 1 response time exceeded the 10 working days set out in the landlord’s policy, the delay was not excessive (4 days) and did not cause significant additional detriment to the resident. At stage 2, the landlord initially said it would respond within 15 working days, but subsequently received a letter from this Service asking it to respond within 20 working days. Its response time of 19 working days was therefore understandable, and the overall 8-week timeframe of the complaints process acceptable. It was also reasonable for the landlord to request further information from the resident before escalating the complaint, and to escalate the complaint promptly once she provided this.
  10. The complaint responses were confusingly worded in places – for example, the stage 1 response stated “I am sorry you have needed to escalate your complaint” and the stage 2 response stated that the resident had made 2 formal complaints, rather than a single escalated complaint. The stage 2 response also apologised for “any distress and inconvenience caused” despite previously acknowledging the significant distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and offering specific redress for this. However, the landlord proactively acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failures at stage 2. It also offered compensation that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, made sufficient amends for the deficiencies identified (£50 at stage 1 and £100 at stage 2). Had this Service investigated the landlord’s complaint handling separately, a finding of reasonable redress would have been made, and so it has been considered proportionate to address this as part of the substantive issue.

Review of policy

  1. The Ombudsman has previously found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks, damp and mould, and delayed repairs. Some relevant cases and findings are set out below:
    1. 202103663 – we found severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak and delays in addressing the repair, with an order made for the landlord to review its policies and procedures in relation to damp and mould cases and repair timescales;
    2. 202111993 – we found severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s delayed handling of damp and mould, with no repairs policy in place;
    3. 202112331 – we found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s delays in resolving a leak;
    4. 202114260 – we found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak, damp and mould, with the report again referring to the absence of a repairs policy or timeframes;
    5. 202123325 – we found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a reported leak;
    6. 202200318 – we found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to a leak which caused damp and mould, and in relation to other repairs;
    7. 202200727 – we found severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s delayed handling of repairs;
    8. 202202849 – we found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak, with the landlord appearing unclear of its repair responsibilities;
    9. 202202956 – we found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak and delays in carrying out works;
    10. 202210355 – we found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak from a neighbouring property and poor communication.
  2. The Ombudsman also has several complaints awaiting investigation where similar issues have been identified. A wider order has therefore been made under paragraph 54f of the Scheme.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to a leak, remedial repairs, and damage caused by the leak.

Reasons

  1. The landlord delayed in effectively resolving leaks affecting the property and did not offer a decant to the resident. This meant that she was living with damp and mould in her property, dripping water, and no usable toilet for a period of months. She was also concerned about the impact on her health and about the safety of electrical installations impacted by the leak. Some cosmetic repairs served to disguise ongoing problems, and the landlord’s records minimised the scale of some events such as a collapsed ceiling. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment and/or assured itself that the property was habitable during the period assessed. Though it accepted and apologised for its failures, its offer of compensation did not reflect the elements set out in its policy or the level of detriment caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Reiterate its apology to the resident for its delays in resolving leaks affecting her property and failure to consider a decant. The apology should be made by a member of staff at director level or higher, and should acknowledge the unacceptable conditions in which the resident was required to live for at least a 10-month period.
    2. Pay the resident £3,550, comprising:
      1. £600 for its delay in resolving the leak issue;
      2. £2,550 for the loss of amenity she experienced (50% of her weekly rent for 42 weeks between May 2022 and March 2023);
      3. £300 for the distress and convenience caused to her;
      4. £100 for its complaint handling failures, as previously offered.

If the landlord has already paid the resident the £1,000 (or other amount) it previously offered, this should be deducted from the total above, meaning that the difference is now due.

  1. Pay the resident a further amount to reflect any continued loss of amenity she experienced between 6 March 2023 and the completion of the leak repairs (while she remained living in the property). This amount should be calculated at 50% of the resident’s rent.
  2. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.
  1. If the leak is ongoing, the landlord is ordered to consider offering a decant to the resident. Its decision must be informed by an assessment of any hazards present in the property according to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The decision must be communicated to the resident and to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report, together with details of action/arrangements if a decant is to be offered. If the leak has been resolved and the property repaired, the landlord must notify this Service and provide appropriate supporting evidence.
  2. If the leak is ongoing, or if the leak has been resolved and it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to carry out a further inspection to identify any outstanding remedial works (and satisfy itself that there are no further leaks, if applicable). It must then produce a schedule of works, which it must share with the resident and with this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of the resident’s case within 12 weeks of the date of this report. It must provide a copy of the resulting report to its governing body and to this Service.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54f of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to introduce a repairs policy within 12 weeks of the date of this report. It must also update the information on its website to include its target timeframes for different types of repair (emergency, routine etc). A copy of the repairs policy and a link to the updated website must be provided to this Service.