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

Newham Council (201907602)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201907602

Newham Council

28 January 2021


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 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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder complains about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. reports of a repair at his property, and;
    2. the subsequent formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 12 March 2019 the landlord’s building insurer emailed the landlord’s Technical Services Team saying that the leaseholder had advised it of a leak at the property. The waste pipe under the sink had been temporarily repaired, but required flushing before any reinstatement works began. There was significant water damage to flat no 1 below. The landlord replied the following day stating that it had spoken with the leaseholder and advised him to contact the repair team “…to see if they can raise a job to the block for any stack–pipe blockage.”
  2. On 13 March 2019 a job was raised against the block to investigate water penetration into flat 1, reference 6503288.
  3. On 15 March 2019 under reference 65037780/1 a job was raised to clear a blockage to the communal drain back-surging to the property.
  4. On 20 March 2019 the insurer emailed the Technical Services Team again advising that the leaseholder had informed it that the landlord’s plumber had attended the property and found no leak. The leaseholder therefore presumed that there was a leak somewhere in the communal stack-pipe that was blocked, and was requesting that this be looked into further by the landlord. The insurer reiterated that it was unable to authorise any reinstatement works until it had received confirmation that the leak had been successfully repaired. The leaseholder also emailed the Technical Services Team that same day explaining that water damage was continuing at the property, and asked for an urgent update on when it would attend to assess the stack–pipe.
  5. On 21 March 2019 the leaseholder emailed the Technical Services Team again as the landlord had attended his property that day, without an appointment, and left a calling card under the door. He stated “Your plumber already visited my flat last week and found no leak from inside. What was the purpose of another visit?” He asked what would be done to resolve the problem.
  6. The Technical Services Team sent an internal email the following day quoting job reference 65037780/1, asking “Someone raised this job although it is not clear who called to raise this and please confirm why access is required at the property.” The Technical Services Team also copied the leaseholder into the email, asking him to contact the repairs line to find out why access was required at his property. The leaseholder responded saying that he called the repairs line as requested and had been told that it was not aware that the problem was ongoing. He said that he had asked that the communal pipes were looked at, as he was still experiencing a back surge into the property. He asked the landlord to keep him notified of progress.
  7. The Technical Services Team sent an internal email on 22 March 2019 asking the repairs team to determine whether access was required at the property, and if so for an appointment to be made. It copied the leaseholder into this, advising “…if it is communal pipe and they need access through your flat, then they should be in contact with you to make necessary arrangements.”
  8. On 3 April 2019 the Client Relations Housing Team emailed the leaseholder stating that they understood that there was a leak from his property into the flat below (flat 1) and asked him to arrange for a plumber to trace/remedy the leak. 
  9. On 4 and 5 April 2019 the Technical Services Team emailed the leaseholder and explained that once the repairs team confirmed the blockage was due to the stack–pipe it would inform the insurers. However, they were still awaiting an update from repairs.
  10. On 5 April 2019 the leaseholder replied to the Client Relations Housing Team saying “You make assumptions that there is a leak within my own property when I made it clear…that there are none. Your own repairs team plumbers in fact visited my flat 3-4 weeks ago and also confirmed this.” He said “that he had paid for plumbers to repair the leak in his property and for the last month had been trying to ‘amicably resolve’ the issue but had not had much help. He felt that there had been miscommunication and asked for the matter to be escalated to managers to investigate.
  11. On 8 April 2019 the Client Relations Housing Team responded to the leaseholder stating that they had been told by the repair team that there was a leak in the property, affecting flat 1, but it acknowledged that this was incorrect and apologised. It copied this email internally and asked whether it was the stack–pipe that was the source of the leak and if so, whether this fell under the landlord’s or leaseholder’s responsibility.
  12. On 9 April 2019 the leaseholder emailed the Client Relations Housing Team to say that once again its plumbers had knocked at his property without an appointment regarding a leak into flat 1, despite it already having been confirmed that there was no leak from his property. He chased this up on 12 April 2019, asking when the landlord would be unblocking the pipes, reiterating that this needed to be done before the insurance company would carry out repairs.
  13. On 15 April 2019 the leaseholder emailed the Client Relations Housing Team, copying in the insurer, asking it to instruct the insurers to agree to go ahead.
  14. Job 651110101 was raised on 23 April 2019 against the block, relating to a leak from the property into flat 1. The landlord has stated that an appointment was attended on 29 April 2019, but not completed as no adult was present.   
  15. The leaseholder made a formal complaint to the landlord on 16 May 2019. In this he explained that damage had been caused to his property due to flooding caused by a blocked communal stack–pipe, and he had an open insurance claim for this. He stated “Your insurers…would now not settle the claim until your service repairs team have located and fixed the leak to their communal stack pipes” The leaseholder stated that he had made a number of contacts with the landlord to report the problem in April and May 2019, and plumbers had attended and confirmed there was no leak from within his property, therefore “…they are supposed to locate their stack pipes/any communal pipes to do a power flush but have not done so to date.” He said that this meant the damage to his kitchen continued. He asked the landlord to take urgent action to carry out the repair.
  16. There were also a number of emails between the leaseholder, the Technical Services Team and the Maintenance Co-ordinator in May 2019, with the leaseholder chasing the repair, and the landlord advising that it would make an appointment. The leaseholder asked why the landlord needed to attend the flat again and why job 651110101 stated ‘leak from flat 9 to flat 1’ when it had previously been confirmed that there was no leak. He also asked if the landlord had checked the stack–pipes. The landlord does not appear to have responded to these questions.
  17. Instead, on 20 May 2019 the Maintenance Co-ordinator emailed the leaseholder with an appointment for an operative to attend to rectify a leak on 24 May 2019. The leaseholder responded asking what it needed to do inside the property, and asking if it had located the stack–pipes. The Maintenance Co-ordinator responded on 23 May 2019 and explained that they would ask the operative to call the manager from site on 24 May 2019 to confirm exactly where the leak was coming from, as they would need to check the stack–pipes as well as the inside the property to determine why the leak was ongoing.
  18. As the leaseholder was unable to arrange time off work for 24 May 2019, the landlord offered a new appointment for 29 May 2019. On 28 May 2019 the leaseholder emailed several staff members to say that he had just been contacted by the repairs team to advise that “…the neighbour below has called and advised of the leak again…Could someone please ask the neighbour to allow access during the visit tomorrow to establish any damage and to ascertain where the leak may be coming from?” It is not clear to the Ombudsman which flat this relates to (both flat 1 and flat 4 are below the property)
  19. The Ombudsman understands that the appointment on 29 May 2019 went ahead. On the same day, the Customer Services Team sent a response to the leaseholder’s 16 May 2019 complaint, apologising that the source of the leak had not been identified and noting that an operative was attending that day, which it hoped would resolve the problem. It also said that concerns about the insurance claim were something he would have to address with the insurers directly.
  20. On 19 June 2019 the leaseholder emailed several staff members asking for an update, as he had heard nothing since the 29 May 2019 attendance. The Maintenance Co-ordinator replied saying that it had been unable to gain access to flat 4 to clear the blockage, and may need to arrange for a Housing Officer to get involved due to lack of access.
  21. The leaseholder emailed again on 24 June 2019 asking for an update. The Maintenance Co-ordinator replied that they had been trying to gain access to flat 4 to clear the blockage. The lack of access was causing ‘major issues’ and had escalated to the Housing Team to force entry if necessary. The leaseholder responded stating that given that the blockage was at another property there should be no reason to withhold the repairs at his any longer, and asked the landlord to instruct its insurers to proceed so that he could have the damage to his property repaired.
  22. In reply on 25 June 2019 the Technical Services Team said it would confirm the reason that access was required at flat 4 “… since you are directly above. I can only apologise for the delay but we have now arranged access at flat 4, for this Thursday 27th June a.m.” The leaseholder responded that he was not directly above flat 4 and asked the landlord to clarify whether repairs could now start at his property. The Technical Services Team responded that same day apologising that the matter was ongoing and saying that it was waiting for the repair team to clarify the situation.
  23. On 2 July 2019 the leaseholder emailed the Technical Services Team to ask who was dealing with his complaint. In reply it said that it needed to liaise with operatives to confirm their findings. It said “I am trying to see if access was gained (whether through your property) or through communal and all blockage cleared.” The leaseholder pointed out that the matter had been ongoing for a long time and asked when the repairs would be carried out. He chased up his queries about the repairs and his complaint on several occasions after this with no response from the landlord. He asked to escalate the matter to the next stage of the complaint process.
  24. Job 65037780/l1 was raised on 4 July 2019 to clear a blockage to the communal drain back-surging to the property. Job 65111010/l1 was raised on 17 July 2019 against the block, in relation to a leak from the property into flat 1.
  25. On 8 August 2019 the Customer Services Team emailed the leaseholder asking him to confirm whether the appointment booked for 29 May 2019 was attended. The leaseholder replied that same day that it was, and it was confirmed the leak may be from flat 4. He again asked to escalate the matter to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. The leaseholder emailed again on 14 August 2019 asking to escalate the matter to stage 2.
  26. On 21 August 2019 a Resolution Officer responded saying that the Senior Building Surveyor visited the block on 7 August 2019 and spoke with the leaseholder’s tenants who were not aware of any leaks or damage to the property from above. There did appear to be a problem with the guttering and soil-pipe.
  27. The leaseholder responded that same day stating that there was ongoing miscommunication regarding the issue, reiterating that he had reported the matter to insurers at the beginning of the year, but was told that the insurers could not agree to the repairs in his property until the landlord had located and resolved the blocked communal stack-pipe. He asked the landlord for a timeline for repairs, stating “…my tenants have been subjected to the leaks and disturbance now for some time and I had to pay for plumbers to come out and fix the leaks. However this is only temporarily and the kitchen sink keeps filling up due to the blocked communal stack pipes somewhere in the block of flats, which it appears your officers have failed to pin point to date?” He again requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two.
  28. As there was no response the leaseholder chased this up on 23, 27, 28 and 30 August 2019 with no reply. Following on from another chasing email of 3 September 2019 the Resolution Officer responded that same day stating that they were following up when works would be carried out to the side elevation of the building. They stated that in relation to the concerns about issues in the leaseholder’s property not being addressed it would arrange a further inspection.
  29. The leaseholder replied that same day saying he found this unacceptable given the landlord had visited the property several times already.  He stated “The insurance company’s own surveyor already visited my property back when I reported the issue and officially surveyed the damage and agreed the works that needs to be undertaken, ie. floorboards, kitchen sink, pipes etc.” The leaseholder did not feel that any further inspections were required, and pointed out that his tenants had now given notice to leave which he believed was due to the ongoing repair issue. He noted that the landlord continued to ignore his request to escalate his complaint to stage two. He said “I ask one final time, can you instruct the insurance company to settle the claim or can you provide steps on how to escalate this complaint?”
  30. As there was no response to this the leaseholder chased the landlord on 11 September 2019 stating he had been in touch with the Ombudsman. The Resolution Officer emailed the following day saying the repairs manager had confirmed that repairs were completed on 2 September 2019, and therefore the property should start to dry out, and the insurance company would now be able to assess the damage and move forward with completing the remedial works.
  31. In response to a request from the Ombudsman to provide a formal response to the complaint, on 17 September 2019 the landlord confirmed that it would do so, stating that this would be a stage one response.
  32. The Resolution Officer then emailed the leaseholder on 14 October 2019, saying that in September 2019 the Repairs and Maintenance Services erected scaffold to the block and carried out a number of repairs externally. It then had to wait a number of weeks to allow the building to dry out to be sure that the repairs had solved the problem. In view of this, it was arranging for a Building Surveyor to visit his property on 25 October 2019 to assess if the affected areas were drying out. The leaseholder responded asking several questions, including why it thought his property required drying out and why it hadn’t escalated the complaint to stage 2. He pointed out that the insurer’s surveyor had already attended to assess the damage.
  33. The Resolution Officer responded stating that their surveyor would be checking a number of locations internal and external to confirm that it was satisfied. They said “The insurance aspect is a different process and they will refer to our Building Surveyor’s report in any case.” Regarding the stage two response, they said that the complaint was still in the stage one process, and once the inspection had taken place on 25 October 2019 they would be in a position to answer the complaint.
  34. The leaseholder emailed the Resolution Officer on 16 October 2019 asking for further clarification on the building surveyor’s visit. He said that he was unable to accommodate the appointment on 25 October 2019, and asked for the surveyor’s details so that they could agree a convenient time. The leaseholder asked for the matter to be escalated to stage two of the complaint process.
  35. On 22 October 2019 the Resolution Officer responded to the leaseholder’s request for clarification, explaining that when a property has been affected by a fault that related to the fabric of the building, a technical inspection was needed to check that the communal repairs had resolved the issue. They said “If your home is inspected by the insurance company and they feel that the property is still being affected, then the insurance company will refer the case back to Technical Services. So the purpose of the inspection is for the Council to be satisfied all the repairs have been completed to the fabric of the building.”  The landlord would make the arrangements for this once the leaseholder was ready and could provide available dates. It would then provide him with the surveyor’s contact details. Once it had received the inspection report, it would write to the leaseholder with a full response to the complaint.
  36. The leaseholder responded the same day stating that the poor service and delays had caused him great discomfort, impacted him financially and led to a loss off rent as his tenants had left due to the significant delays in repairs. He asked for a formal complaint response to be provided.
  37. The landlord’s surveyor attended the building on 25 October 2019 and emailed the landlord that same day. This email did not include any comment on the leaseholder’s property.
  38. The Resolution Officer provided a formal complaint response dated 21 November 2019. It concluded that on each occasion the surveyor visited the property, the tenants had stated they had not been affected. Further, it had contacted the insurance company who had stated that it had not received a claim from the leaseholder regarding damage caused to his property. The landlord ended by saying that should the leaseholder like to arrange an inspection it would be happy to do so. Otherwise he could raise the matter with the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the leasehold agreement, which would confirm which party is responsible for what repair. However, it is usual that a leaseholder has responsibility for repairs within the demised property, and repairs in communal areas would be the responsibility of the landlord. In this case, responsibility for repairs was not disputed and the landlord assumed responsibility for repair of the communal stack-pipe.
  2. The landlord does not have a repairs policy or procedure. It has a provided the Ombudsman with a link to its website that gives some detail on its repairs service, but this does not include timescales for repairs to be completed.
  3. The landlord has a complaint policy which sets out a three-stage process, the first of which is Early Resolution for non-complex issues without the need for a formal investigation or detailed written response.
  4. Stage one comprises more detailed consideration and a decision on fault is required, or as requested by the complainant themselves. A formal investigation will be undertaken, and a response provided within 20 working days by a Complaints Officer. If the complainant does not agree with the outcome of the investigation, a stage two Complaint Review may be requested. Another Complaints Officer, not previously involved with the handling of the original complaint, will conduct a thorough review of any new information provided as well as ensuring the original decision was fair. A response should be provided in 15 working days.
  5. The landlord does not have a compensation policy, but the complaint policy allows for compensation or a goodwill payment to be made where appropriate.

Repairs

  1. The leaseholder has been unable to fully recollect the events regarding the issues complained about. He has stated to this Service that around January 2019 a back surge into his kitchen sink caused flooding and water damage to his property. He then made a building insurance claim with the landlord’s insurer. He does not recall when or how the repair was resolved, but says it may have been around September or October 2019.
  2. The landlord has provided a copy of its repair records, and the Ombudsman notes that these contain no evidence of any leak or back surge issue from January or February 2019 relating to the leaseholder’s property.
  3. The Ombudsman requested from the leaseholder copies of his correspondence with the landlord from early 2019. The earliest record provided is dated 12 March 2019 and is the email from the landlord’s insurer to the landlord’s Technical Services Team, informing it that the leaseholder had advised of a leak at the property.
  4. There is no indication from this email that the matter had been reported to the landlord prior to this. The email reads as though the incident had just occurred, and was being reported to the landlord as such. It states that there was ‘a leak’ but doesn’t detail what this was, instead referencing the need for a flush of the pipe. It is not clear how these two issues related, or how the damage to flat 1 was caused.
  5. However, the landlord notes in its response to the insurer that it spoke with the leaseholder, and in light of this conversation he was advised to contact the repairs team so that a job could be raised for any stack pipe–blockage. It seems then that this conversation clarified that the matter being reported to the landlord was a blocked stack pipe, and there is no reference to a leak.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord acted appropriately here in contacting the leaseholder and advising him to report the matter to the repairs team. The stack–pipe was the landlord’s responsibility and so it was obliged to investigate any issue with this. It did raise a job to do so on 15 March 2019 under reference 65037780/1 “to clear a blockage to the communal drain back-surging to the property”, presumably after the leaseholder had contacted the repairs team as he had been advised to. This was appropriate and timely, however, there is no record of an appointment being made for this job, or any outcome.
  7. When the insurer emailed the landlord on 20 March 2019 it again referenced a leak, noting that the landlord’s plumber had attended the property and found no leak. It is still not clear what the leak being referred to here was, and there is no record of this attendance in the repair records. It seems likely that it was in relation to job 6503288 raised against the block to investigate a leak into flat 1. There is no indication that the job that was raised in relation to reference 65037780/1 (blocked stack-pipe) was carried out at this time. This Service notes that the leaseholder reported that water damage was continuing at his property, although he did not explain how this was occurring.
  8. The leaseholder then reported that a plumber had visited again, unannounced, on 21 March 2019 (with no access), and questioned the need for this given that a plumber had already been the previous week and found no leak. Again, there is no record of any such appointment in the records, and the landlord did not provide an answer to the leaseholder’s question about what this visit was for.
  9. There follows a lengthy and somewhat confusing to-and-fro between the leaseholder and the landlord, which seems to conflate the two issues (a leak, and a blockage in the stack-pipe) with the landlord seemingly unable to provide the leaseholder with a response to his enquiries, or to determine the status of the repairs. For example, the Client Relations Housing team’s email dated 3 April 2019 demonstrates that the landlord understood that there was a leak from property into flat 1 despite the leaseholder having stated on several occasions that its plumber had confirmed that there was not. The following day the Technical Services Team confirmed that it still did not have an update on the stack-pipe repair.
  10. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken action here to clarify the matter, firstly by establishing the outcome (if any) to its job reference 65037780/1 for the stack-pipe, and following this up if necessary. It should also have clarified the issue of the leak, verifying the leaseholder’s claim that its own plumber had already attended to investigate a leak and had confirmed that there was no leak from his property.
  11. However, despite the landlord’s emails of 4, 5 and 8 April 2019 regarding the stack–pipe and stating it was still awaiting an update from the repairs team regarding a possible blockage and leak, no such update seems to have been forthcoming. Instead, the leaseholder reported another visit by the landlord’s plumbers on 9 April 2019 regarding a leak into flat 1, and again saying that the landlord’s plumber had already confirmed that there was no leak from his property. He asked again on 12 April 2019 when the landlord would be unblocking the stack-pipe, reiterating that this needed to be done before the insurance company would carry out repairs. There is no indication that the landlord responded to this, or was otherwise taking any action on this repair.
  12. Despite the leaseholder stating on several occasions that the landlord’s plumber had confirmed that there was no leak from his property and chasing up the stack-pipe issue, on 23 April 2019 job refence 651110101 was raised regarding a leak from the property into flat 1. The landlord records that it attended on 29 April 2019, but no work was carried out as no adult was present. The leaseholder continued to query why it needed to attend the flat and why the job stated ‘leak from flat 9 to flat 1’ when it had previously confirmed that there was no leak, but the landlord provided no response.
  13. Again, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken steps here to verify the leaseholder’s statement that a plumber had already attended and provide an explanation as to why they were required to attend again, and what exactly was being investigated. The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach to follow up job 6503778, speak with the leaseholder to clarify the matter and ensure that an appointment was agreed with him to attend and assess the stack-pipe issue. It appears that the landlord was unable to provide any clarity as it was seemingly unable to keep track of the repairs/outcomes. 
  14. It was not until the leaseholder made his formal complaint that the landlord agreed an appointment with him for 29 May 2019, but this was stated as being to attend to rectify a leak, not a blocked stack-pipe, further demonstrating a misunderstanding of the situation.
  15. The matter seems to have become more confused, which perhaps in some part may have been down to confusing reports from the leaseholder: His formal complaint makes the reason for the damage in the property clear, explaining that this had been caused by flooding from a blocked communal stack–pipe, which needed to be flushed. Because this had not happened, damage to his kitchen (possibly from the flooding due to the back surge) continued. However, he also stated that the insurers wouldn’t settle the claim until a leak to the communal stack pipe had been repaired. In addition, he references there being no leak from the property ‘to downstairs’ as confirmed by plumbers. It remains unclear to this Service how this relates to the stack-pipe issue.
  16. Nevertheless, it is clear from the complaint and the leaseholder’s email that he was waiting for the stack-pipe to be investigated. The evidence available indicates that to date, the landlord had not done this.
  17. Although again there is no record of the 29 May 2019 attendance or the outcome, the Ombudsman understands that this went ahead. There is no evidence that any repairs were carried out or that the landlord updated the leaseholder on the findings of this or what would happen next.
  18. In response to the leaseholder chasing up the outcome of the 29 May 2019 attendance, the landlord indicated in its very brief 19 June 2019 email that a blockage had been identified at flat 4, which needed to be cleared, but it was having issues with access. No mention is made of the stack-pipe or any investigations into this. It may be that the blockage had been found in flat 4, rather than in the stack-pipe, but if this was the case then it should have been made clear. The landlord did not respond to the leaseholder’s questions about this or his requests to inform its insurers to go ahead with the works at his property.
  19. When the leaseholder chased this up again in July 2019 the landlord was unable to confirm whether the blockage in flat 4 had been cleared. It did not explain why and advised that repairs management would be contacting the leaseholder. There is no indication that this happened, and in fact the leaseholder chased up his queries about the repairs and his complaint on many occasions with no response from the landlord. This was no doubt extremely frustrating for him given the length of time the matter had been ongoing. Again, this is concerning as it appears that the landlord was failing to keep track of the repairs. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have a clear record of the outcome of its repairs work.
  20. The job from March 2019 to investigate a stack-pipe blockage was re-raised on 4 July 2019, presumably in response to the leaseholder chasing this, but there is no indication that he was informed of this, any appointment was made, or that it was attended.
  21. On 8 August 2019 the landlord did provide a response, asking the leaseholder to confirm whether the appointment booked for 29 May 2019 was attended. This is a concern, as the landlord should have been able to determine this from its own records, and further demonstrates that the landlord was failing to keep track of the matter.
  22. When the leaseholder replied confirming that the appointment had gone ahead, he stated that it was confirmed the leak may be from flat 4. This is somewhat confusing as the landlord had made no mention of a leak from flat 4: it said it had found a blockage. The leaseholder’s references here to a leak may have caused further confusion in the matter, although it is acknowledged that it is not the responsibility of the leaseholder to maintain records on behalf of the landlord.
  23. When the landlord next emailed on 21 August 2019 it referenced the Senior Building Surveyor’s visit to the block on 7 August 2019. It said “During their visit, it was noted that Flat 4 had been affected from a previous leak in the bathroom and there was damp to the Living room wall. When the officers knocked on [the leaseholder’s property]….the tenant claimed that the property and was not aware of any leaks or damages to the property from above.” There did appear to be a problem with the guttering and possible leakage with the soil-pipe which would be checked. It concluded “I would advise you to contact your insurance provider in the first instance and I will update you once the repairs are completed.”
  24. While it is understandable that there may have been confusion about the case given some of the unclear communications from the leaseholder referencing a leak (when in fact his concern was a stack-pipe blockage and the impact this was having on his insurance claim), this was still a poor response from the landlord, and did not address the main issues that he had been raising. There is no mention of the stack-pipe or the blockage at flat 4, and no indication that these were assessed at the visit. Further, as the leaseholder pointed out in response, he had never claimed that there was a leak into the property from above, and he had already made a claim against the buildings insurance. It is clear from the landlords 21 August 2019 email that it did not have any understanding at this point of the circumstances of the leaseholder’s case.
  25. Having said this, the leaseholder’s response to the landlord is also confusing. He stated that his tenants had been subjected to leaks for some time. It is not clear what leaks these were and seems to contradict his earlier statements that there were no leaks from his property.  Further, he said that he had to pay for plumbers to come out and fix the leaks, but this was only temporary and the kitchen sink kept filling up due to the blocked communal stack-pipe. It is not clear to the Ombudsman why the leak the leaseholder’s own plumber fixed (presumably this is in refence to the leak from the waste pipe) was temporary, or how this related to the stack-pipe.
  26. However, he also again explained that kitchen sink kept filling up due to a blocked stack–pipe and asked for a timeline for repairs. The leaseholder had to chase this up on many occasions before eliciting a response from the landlord on 3 September 2019. No explanation was provided by the landlord as to why it had failed to respond to any of his previous emails, and the response referencing the works to be carried out to the side elevation of the building had little bearing on the issues and questions that the leaseholder had raised. Again, the landlord makes no reference to the stack–pipe, and attempted to make another appointment for an inspection of the leaseholder’s property.
  27. There followed further chasing by the leaseholder who was clearly confused by the need for an inspection and eager to have the matter escalated to stage 2. Instead, of doing so, the landlord advised him that repairs had been completed on 2 September 2019, and so the property should now dry out. Again, this fails to address the issues that had been raised by the leaseholder repeatedly. Neither is it clear what repairs had been carried out, or how they related to the leaseholder’s property. It is perhaps understandable that the landlord believed that the property needed to dry out (when it appears it did not) due to the leaseholder’s various references to a leak, but nevertheless the stack-pipe issue had still been ignored.
  28. The landlord’s update to the leaseholder on 14 October 2019 also failed to address the stack-pipe issue, and instead said that it that it was arranging for a Building Surveyor to visit the leaseholder’s property on 25 October 2019 to assess if the affected areas were drying out. The landlord later said that the purpose of the inspection was so that it could be satisfied that all the repairs had been completed to the fabric of the building. However, it is not clear what these repairs were, and how they related to the leaseholder’s original issues.
  29. Despite the leaseholder explaining that he was unable to accommodate the 25 October 2019 appointment, the Surveyor attended anyway. This was inappropriate. They emailed the landlord that same day with the outcome of his inspections at the block. This email did not include any information about the leaseholder’s property and neither does it indicate that any decision was made on whether the landlord was satisfied that all the repairs had been completed to ‘the fabric of the building’. The Surveyor later stated “[the leaseholder] is a leaseholder that is sub-letting his tenants had nothing to complain about.”
  30. The leaseholder has reported to the Ombudsman that his tenants have said that they did not state this. As the Ombudsman is unable to verify what was said during this exchange, it is not possible to come to any conclusions here. In any case, the landlord had said it was attending to assess how the affected areas were drying out, when this was not the matter that the leaseholder had been pursuing. As on 7 August 2019 visit, there is no indication that the stack-pipe was inspected on 25 October 2019.
  31. It has been difficult to determine exactly what has happened in this case given the confusing reporting of issues from both the leaseholder and the landlord, and the lack of records detailing repair attendances and outcomes. This Service has been unable to definitively determine if there was a blockage in the stack-pipe, and if so whether this was cleared, what the outcome was with the blockage in flat 4, the details of the damage to flat 1, or the leak.
  32. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the main repair issue that the leaseholder repeatedly contacted the landlord about, a blocked-stack pipe, was investigated. The leaseholder has stated to this Service that the back-surging issue in the property stopped around September 2019, which would coincide with the works that the landlord said had been carried out that month, and so it is possible that those works resolved the problem. However, this was six months after the leaseholder first reported the matter, which was a long and significant delay, even taking into account the issues with access at flat 4.
  33. As well as this delay, there were several failings on the part of the landlord in monitoring and following up its repair jobs, updating the leaseholder, responding to his enquiries, clarifying the issues, and record keeping. At times it seemed to be completely unaware of the details of the leaseholder’s concerns. The landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue were sporadic and, when the landlord did engage with the leaseholder, its poor record keeping appears to have hampered its efforts.
  34. The leaseholder has informed this Service that the back surge issue has begun again more recently, and is ongoing.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s 29 May 2019 response to the 16 May 2019 complaint would seem to be an Early Resolution response. Given that there was a repair appointment that day, this was appropriate and in line with the complaint policy.
  2. However, when the matter was not resolved, the leaseholder made a number of requests to escalate the matter. The first in July 2019 and again several times more that month, then on many occasions in August 2019 and again in September 2019. The landlord ignored these requests.
  3. There is no evidence that a stage one complaint response was provided at this time. The landlord has referenced its 21 August 2019 email as being a stage one response, but there is no indication of this from the brief email, which does not provide a ‘detailed consideration and decision on fault’ as set out in the complaint policy. 
  4.  A written response was provided in November 2019, four months after the leaseholder requested escalation of the matter in July 2019. This represents a significant failing in complaint handling on the part of the landlord. While the repair issue may have been ongoing, this should not have precluded the leaseholder form pursuing a formal complaint.
  5. The 21 November 2019 response (which was presumably a stage two response given it referred the leaseholder to this Service as a next step), was provided by the same Resolution Officer that had been involved in the case. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy stating that a stage two response would be provided by an officer that had not previously been involved.
  6. The response clearly noted the contents of the leaseholder’s 16 May 2019 complaint as being about damage due to flooding/blocked communal stack–pipe, and an open insurance claim for this that was being delayed. However, it failed to address any of these issues. It said that job 65037780/1 was raised on 15 March 2019 to clear blockage to communal drain back-surging, but provided no further information on this, whether it was attended, or what the outcome was. Given this was the main thrust of the complaint, this was a failing.
  7. It then referenced job 651110101 raised on 23 April 2019 relating to a leak from the property into flat 1, stating that the job was aborted due to no adult being home, and so an emergency order was then raised to attend and at this appointment contractors found that there was no issue at the leaseholder’s property, but there was a problem at flat 4. The Ombudsman has seen no record or mention of any such emergency order in any of the evidence available. This does not explain why a job was raised for a leak in April 2019, given the leaseholder had by that point said several times that the landlord’s plumber had already been and confirmed that there was no leak.
  8. The response goes on to explain that due to a number of complaints received from properties in the block, the inspection took place on 7 August 2019, noting that when officers knocked at the leaseholder’s property the tenant claimed that the property was fine and they were not aware of any leaks or damage being caused.
  9. The Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate for the landlord to imply here that there was no problem at the property based on alleged reports from tenants, during what seems to have been an unannounced visit, given there is no record of an appointment being made with the leaseholder. It is clear from the correspondence that the leaseholder was continuing to report a problem at this time.
  10. The response said that the leaseholder then challenged the inspection, stating that his tenant had been suffering, and the insurance claim could not be finalised until the blocked communal pipes had been repaired. The landlord therefore “…arranged for an in-depth inspection of the block by a different Building Surveyor on 25 October 2019, where all properties…would be inspected…to establish the cause of the water penetration.” The landlord said that the leaseholder had cancelled the appointment.
  11. This is incorrect – the leaseholder did not cancel the appointment but rather said that he was not available, and asked to make a new one. The complaint response fails to acknowledge this, or the fact that the Surveyor attended anyway. The letter went on to provide the details of the findings for other flats in the block from the 25 October 2019 inspection, although it is not clear why this was relevant, or what bearing this had on the leaseholder’s complaint.
  12. Again reference was made to the tenants stating at this further unannounced visit that there was no water penetration and no damage had been caused. The surveyor confirmed that the leak that was identified would not have affected the leaseholder’s property as it is on the opposite side of the building. No reference was made to the stack-pipe and back surge issue.
  13. While the Ombudsman recognises that some of the leaseholder’s refences to leaks and water damage would have been confusing at points, it was open to the landlord to contact him to clarify his complaint if it was unsure. In any case, it is clear from his formal complaint that he was raising concerns about a blocked stack–pipe causing a back surge and flood into his property, and that this had caused the reported damage that was the subject of the insurance claim. The landlord does not address this or provide any outcome into the blockage issue in its response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:

102.1 reports of a repair at the property, and;

102.2 the subsequent formal complaint.

 

Reasons

  1. The was a long and unreasonable delay in the problem with back surge at the property being remedied (and in fact the leaseholder reports it is ongoing), and while some of the leaseholder’s communications were confusing, the evidence indicates that the landlord failed to maintain accurate repairs records and otherwise keep track of the repairs at the property and the block. The leaseholder’s enquiries were not responded to on many occasions, and when they were, the landlord appears to have misunderstood or otherwise failed to address the issues raised.
  2. This led to a great deal of inconvenience and frustration to the leaseholder who spent several months chasing up the landlord. He has stated that he lost his tenants due to the ongoing issues, and in addition the repairs due to be completed by the insurer were delayed for a long period.
  3. These issues were compounded by the landlord’s failure to follow its complaint policy. It did not escalate the complaint to the next stage of the complaint process when this was requested repeatedly, or issue a stage one response. When the stage two response was provided, this failed to address the crux of the complaint regarding the back surge and stack-pipe issue, and did not acknowledge any failings in either the repair or the complaint process.
  4. The Ombudsman therefore makes orders for redress below. The compensation amount takes into account some of the confusion that may have been caused by the leaseholder’s correspondence, but overall considers both aspects of the complaint to fall under the Ombudsman’s ‘medium impact’ level of redress, for matters that concern considerable service failure or maladministration (with no permanent impact on the complainant).

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1.              Pay the leaseholder a total of £700 (£300 for the failings in complaint handling, and £400 for the failings in the handling of the repair).
    2.              If it has not done so already, inspect the cause of the current reported back surge issues and write to the leaseholder (copying in this Service) updating him on the outcome of this, any repairs required, and when these will be carried out.
    3.              If it has already inspected the cause of the current back surge issues, write to the leaseholder (copying in this Service) detailing the outcome of this, any repairs that have already been carried out, and any that are outstanding, and also setting out what it will do to address any ongoing issue.
  2. It should be noted that, if the leaseholder is dissatisfied with the outcome or handling of the current reported back surge issues, it is open to him to make a fresh formal complaint to the landlord (and ultimately this Service) should he wish to.
  3. It should also be noted that the Ombudsman would have asked the landlord to arrange for staff who deal with complaints to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords. However, this has already been recommended in a separate, recent case so is not repeated here.

.Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1.         Take steps to improve its repair record keeping practices, so that it is able to adequately follow up, report on, and monitor repair works.
    2.         Requests a copy of the lease from the leaseholder so that it is satisfied of its obligations under that lease.
    3.         Considers developing a repairs policy and procedure, to assist the management of its repairs service.