Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202234801)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202234801
Royal Borough Of Greenwich
10 March 2025
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 response to the resident’s reports of:
- Water leaks from flooding and a blocked drain.
- Water leaks from a leaking roof and rainwater pipe.
- Damage caused to his property and personal possessions.
- The resident’s complaint.
Background
- The resident lives in a 2-bedroom basement flat in a house that is owned and managed by the landlord, which is a local authority. The resident bought the property’s lease and moved there in December 2018. The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
- The resident sent 2 complaints to the landlord about leaks affecting the property between December 2022 and March 2024. One instance was caused by a flood and a blocked drain on 23 December 2022. A second instance was caused by a leak into the kitchen from a roof and a rainwater pipe that the resident reported to the landlord on 27 October 2023. In December 2023, a contractor found that a boiler pipe from a neighbouring property had been poorly connected to a communal rainwater pipe. The landlord did not complete a repair until March 2024. The complaint, the landlord’s response to the leaks, and the damage they caused to the resident’s property are related. We have therefore assessed both complaints in this investigation report.
- The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 23 December 2022. He said he had reported a blocked drain and a flood as an emergency but the out of hours team did not answer his telephone call that morning. He reported it to the repairs team later the same morning and the landlord said it would attend the property. It did not send him a text message with a reference for the works as it had agreed. It had still not arrived when he emailed his complaint at 9pm. He said, as the leak was in a communal area, it was the landlord’s duty to fix it, and it also needed to pay for damage caused by the flood water. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 January 2023, and it sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 24 March 2023, in which it said:
- The resident had confirmed in an email on 13 January 2023 that he had opened a blocked drain, and he did not need it to attend anymore.
- The resident’s contents insurance only covered possessions, but he had reported damage to the kitchen floor, kitchen furniture, wallpaper, and plug sockets. Any damage caused to his home would need to be sent as a claim to its insurance provider. It upheld this element of the complaint.
- Its contact centre had responded to an out of hours emergency on 23 December 2022. It aimed to make emergency matters safe within 2 to 3 hours but, when engineers arrived on site at 4:34pm, the drain was not blocked.
- When a resident raises a repair, it is able to send a text message to their telephone but, when an emergency repair is booked, it does not send a text message, as these are sent to its engineers.
- The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 24 March 2023, in which he said:
- The landlord had incorrectly tried to defend its actions in responding to his emergency call, as it had not sent him a text message, and it had left him “in the dark.”
- The landlord said it had attended at 4:30pm, but it did not knock on the door, which was “careless.”
- He had reported the matter in the morning, but it did not attend until the evening.
- The kitchen floor, furniture, sockets, and walls had been damaged, and he asked the landlord to explain who was going to repair this in simple English.
- The Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 2 August 2023. We said that the complaint was about ongoing issues with communal repairs and a delay in responding to his complaint. We explained that the resident had not received a response to a complaint escalation request he had sent in March 2023. The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 15 August 2023. It apologised for the delay in addressing the damage caused by a flood. It understood this may have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It had previously told him that any damage could be submitted as an insurance claim, and it had given him the contact details for this. The insurance team had agreed to repair the damage but had been waiting for the landlord to approve the claim. It had since authorised them to proceed with the claim. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay, it upheld the complaint, and it apologised for any inconvenience it may have caused.
- The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 11 November 2023, in which he said:
- The landlord had not taken responsibility for creating a health hazard, it “did not care,” and it had moved slowly.
- His house had been flooded in December 2022, which had caused damage to the property. The landlord’s insurance company had arranged for repairs, but its contractor found another leak from a roof pipe. The insurance company would not continue with the repairs until the additional leak was fixed. The insurance company had asked him to chase the landlord about the repair.
- The landlord had visited his home on 7 November 2023, but his neighbour had not been at home, so it did not repair the leaking pipe.
- It had not returned to complete the repair. It said it would speak the neighbouring leaseholder about the repair, but it had not done so.
- A contractor had found exposed asbestos but said they would only resolve this when the leaking pipe had been repaired.
- His wife had a skin disease due to the condition of the property.
- The landlord should fix the pipe urgently, so that the insurance company could proceed with drying out and repairing the property.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 24 November 2023, and it sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 6 December 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience the leak from the roof pipe had caused. It said its goal was to repair the leak promptly and prevent any further impact on his property. Its roofing team had contacted an external contractor to inspect the property, and the contractor would contact him to arrange a suitable time to carry out the repair. It upheld the complaint.
- The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 9 February 2024, in which he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leak from a roof pipe. He said the ordered parts were taking too long, and the property was being damaged. He also repeated that the landlord had shown a lack of care, it had known about the leaking roof pipe for a long time, and he was suffering. He said that he wanted compensation for the time he had waited for the landlord to address the matter. The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 7 March 2024. It said an external contractor had previously cleared a blockage on the flat roof in December 2023, which had addressed a roof leak. However, it had traced another issue to the property above, which it had reported to the occupants, who sealed the leak as a temporary measure. As the resident had continued to report the leak, it had contacted the neighbouring occupants again for them to complete the plumbing repair immediately. It was sorry for the distress that may have been caused. It would update him as it received more information. It partially upheld the complaint.
- The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 13 March 2024. He said that his house had not been repaired following the flood that had taken place in December 2022. The property had since become infested with mice and contained exposed asbestos that had not been repaired. His also said his wife’s health had been affected. He explained that, to put the matters right, the landlord should provide him with compensation.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- The resident has said that delays in completing property repairs have affected his wife’s health and wellbeing and damaged the property. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts can give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased views on the type, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Courts and insurers are also the most effective places for disputes about property damage because they can determine liability for damages, which we cannot. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so and are not bound by legal rules of evidence.
- Therefore, the resident’s concerns about the effect of the condition of the property on the health of his family are better dealt with via the courts in keeping with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme. This says that we may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
- The resident has sent claims to the landlord’s insurance company for damage caused to his property because of leaks that affected the property. The landlord is legally responsible for insuring the building and making sure residents have access to advice and information about insurance claims. However, we are unable to comment on the outcome of any insurance claims, as we can only consider the actions of the landlord, and we do not have any say over the landlord’s insurers. This is in keeping with paragraph 42.o. of the Scheme. This says that we may not consider complaints about matters where the outcome is not within our authority to provide. However, we have considered the landlord’s general response to the resident’s insurance claim and any distress or inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
Flooding and a blocked drain
- The resident’s lease says that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the resident’s building and estate. This includes the pipework, drains, structure, exterior, and communal parts of the building. The landlord is also responsible for insuring the building and recovering its costs in upholding these obligations from the leaseholder as a service charge.
- The resident tried to report a blocked drain and flooding to the landlord using its out of hours telephone number on 23 December 2022. The landlord did not answer the resident’s call, which resulted in him reporting the matters to its contact centre staff when they opened later the same morning. The landlord publishes advice on its website that says residents can report emergencies 24 hours a day. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have responded to the resident’s emergency in keeping with its published advice. This caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident in reporting the matter later the same morning. It was also likely to have caused distress to the resident, who had been responding to the flood into his property using buckets.
- The landlord said that it would visit the resident’s property as an emergency on the same day. However, there is no evidence to confirm if it had provided an expected timescale to the resident. The landlord’s website says it aims to respond to emergencies, such as blocked drains that are causing flooding, within 2 hours. It would have been reasonable for it to have explained this to manage the resident’s expectations.
- The resident asked the landlord to send him a text message with a reference of the emergency he had reported. He ended the telephone call expecting it would do so. However, the landlord did not text the reference to the resident as he had expected. We have not seen a record of the telephone conversation the resident held with the landlord. However, the landlord addressed the matter in its complaint response on 24 March 2023. It said that it can send text messages in response to reported repairs. But it does not send text messages in response to reported emergencies, as these are issued to its contractors. We cannot see any reason why the landlord could not have provided the resident with a text message in response to his request. The landlord’s failure to do so negatively affected the resident’s view of the landlord. This could have been avoided.
- In his complaint to the landlord, the resident said it had left him “in the dark” and it had not repaired his plug sockets, which was a health hazard. There is no evidence to confirm whether or when the landlord completed any repairs to the electrics in the property, or if it fixed the electricity supply when the flood had taken place. The resident was a leaseholder and was responsible for the inside of his property. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have satisfied itself that there were no electric repairs, or health and safety concerns, it was responsible for. There is no evidence that the resident reported concerns about the electric supply to the landlord again after he had reported the flood and sent a complaint on 23 December 2023.
- The landlord explained in its complaint response that it had inspected the property on the same day, but it had not found a blocked drain. However, the resident had raised the matter as a complaint at 9pm on the same day, because he did not know if the landlord had visited the property. Given the nature of the resident’s report of a serious flood and a blocked drain, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have knocked on the resident’s door when it attended the property. It would also have been reasonable for it to have checked whether any damage to the structure of the property had been caused while it was on site. It is accepted that the resident was a leaseholder and therefore any internal damage to his possession was likely to be his to address. However, the landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident caused him unnecessary time and trouble in raising its handling of the repair as a complaint. It was also likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and his family, who had waited in the property for the landlord to attend.
- There is no evidence that the resident reported the blocked drain or flooding to the landlord again prior to it contacting the resident on 13 January 2023. The resident confirmed that he had opened the drain himself, and that he no longer needed it to attend. It was reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident to check whether there were any further repairs it needed to complete in keeping with the lease. Given the resident’s response, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the flood and blocked drain had been resolved.
- The landlord addressed the matter in its complaint responses and during a conversation it held with him on 5 May 2023. It apologised to the resident for any inconvenience its delay in responding to the flood may have caused. It also advised him that he could make an insurance claim for any damage the flood had caused to his property.
- When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and acknowledgement of service failure) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
- It was reasonable for the landlord to respond to the reported flood as an emergency on the same day, to satisfy itself that the matters had been resolved. It was also appropriate for it to have contacted the resident 3 weeks later to satisfy itself there were no further drain repairs required. However, the landlord said it had asked its out of hours staff to respond to the resident about its handling of his emergency telephone call, but there is no evidence that it did so. Additionally, its failure to communicate with the resident when it inspected the property, and/or send him a text message about the reported emergency, was unreasonable.
- The landlord had a compensation, reimbursement, and redress policy, and it was able to offer the resident compensation for the failings this investigation has identified. However, it failed to do so and so missed the chance to put things right. The landlord also failed to show it had learned from the complaint, which was a missed opportunity to regain the resident’s confidence in its repairs service. Taking all matters into account, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water leaks from flooding and a blocked drain.
- An award of £100 compensation has been ordered below. This level of compensation is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for instances when, as here, there have been minor failings by the landlord which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident but caused him time, trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved. We have also ordered the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the failings this investigation has identified.
Leaking roof and rainwater pipe
- The resident reported a leak into his kitchen to the landlord on 27 October 2023. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the communal parts of the building. This includes the roof and any associated external pipework. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to leaking water pipes within one working day. However, there is no evidence that it did so, which was inappropriate.
- The landlord visited the property on 7 November 2023, but the resident’s neighbour had not been at home, so the landlord failed to repair the leak. We have not seen evidence to assess the landlord’s actions before the resident reported that the leak was still affecting his property on 13 November 2023, 16 November 2023, and 20 November 2023. Landlords are expected to keep and provide clear records of the housing services they provide. The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence that shows how it responded to the leak repair and/or any actions it had taken to contact the neighbour or arrange access to the property. Because the landlord did not provide this information, we are unable to say whether the landlord’s actions during this time were reasonable under all the circumstances. The landlord’s failure to keep and/or provide records of its handling of the leak was a failing.
- The landlord sent an internal email on 20 November 2023 asking for a roofing works order to be raised. It is unclear why the landlord had not raised a roofing repair when the resident first reported the leak to the landlord in October 2023. This delay was likely to have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident while living in the property with a leak. It also caused him time and trouble in pursuing the matter as a complaint on 21 November 2023.
- The resident explained in his complaint that he had made an insurance claim about the property damage caused by the leak. The insurance company arranged for a contractor to visit the property on an undisclosed date in November 2023. The attending contractor identified a further roof leak affecting the property. The insurance company therefore stopped the internal repairs until the leak was fixed. This may have been avoided if the landlord had correctly identified the cause of the leak.
- The landlord discussed the roof leak with the neighbouring leaseholder on 27 November 2023. It was appropriate for it to have contacted the neighbour about the leak from their property. The lease allows the landlord to complete repairs on behalf of leaseholders and recharge them afterwards. It was reasonable for it to agree to investigate and complete the repairs on the neighbour’s behalf.
- A roofing contractor attended the property and cleared a blocked pipe on 5 December 2023, which was appropriate. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have completed the roofing repair sooner given the ongoing damage the leak was causing to the resident’s property. This was not in keeping with its repair policy timescale for an urgent repair. Its delay in identifying the additional rainwater pipe repair was also likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident that could have been avoided.
- During the roofing repair, the contactor found a boiler pipe from the neighbouring property had been poorly attached to a communal rainwater pipe, which was causing a leak. The contractor notified the neighbouring occupant about the leak, and they completed a temporary repair on the same day.
- The landlord tried to complete the repair on 20 December 2023, but it noted on its repair records that it had needed to order parts and rearrange the repair. It also recorded that it continued to communicate with the neighbouring leaseholder about the parts it had ordered before inspecting a main pipe on 15 January 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to order the parts required for the completion of the repair. However, there is no evidence that it communicated with the resident about the progress of the repair. This was a missed opportunity for it to manage his expectations and recognise the inconvenience and likely distress he was experiencing while living with the leak.
- The landlord signed for the delivery of parts it had ordered on 2 February 2024. However, it was later unable to locate the parts, which resulted in it reordering them on 27 February 2024. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have securely stored the parts until it could complete the repair. This failure increased the time it took to repair the leak, and it was likely to have caused more inconvenience to the resident. Additionally, the delay caused him further time and trouble pursuing the matter as a stage 2 complaint on 9 February 2024.
- The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 7 March 2024. It said it had cleared a blockage and repaired a roof leak in December 2023. It apologised for the distress that may have been caused to the resident. It also said that, as he had continued to report the leak, it had traced the matter back to neighbouring property and it had contacted the occupants about the repair.
- When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong, and what it will do to prevent the same mistake from happening again. It was appropriate for the landlord to have apologised to the resident for any distress it may have caused. It was also reasonable for it to summarise its response to the leak in December 2023. However, it failed to explain why there had been a delay in repairing the leak due to its handling of the repair and the parts it had ordered.
- The landlord had taken responsibility for the completion of the repair. It had assessed the pipe, ordered the parts, and had communicated with the neighbouring leaseholder about the repair. Its suggestion that it had not been responsible for the repair, and its failure to explain its mishandling of the ordered parts, was inappropriate.
- The landlord issued its final response to the resident at a time before the leak had been repaired. It would have been appropriate for it to have considered awarding compensation to the resident in keeping with its compensation, reimbursement and redress policy for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that had likely been caused to him for an unreasonable amount of time. Therefore, taking all matters into account we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water leaks from a leaking roof and rainwater pipe.
- Given the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the effect this had on him. This award is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for circumstances where, like here, maladministration is found that has adversely affected the resident and not been proportionately addressed by the landlord.
- We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing, and to inspect the property, assess if it is responsible for the completion of any outstanding repairs, and inform the resident.
Damaged property and personal possessions
- The resident first reported damage to his property and possessions to the landlord when he reported a flood and blocked drain on 23 December 2023. He said that, because the flood had taken place in a communal area and the landlord was responsible, it should also pay for the damage it had caused. The landlord was responsible for repairing the communal areas. It satisfied itself that the matter had been addressed by visiting the property on the same day. It also checked there were no further concerns during a conversation it held with the resident on 13 January 2023. However, as the property was leasehold, the landlord was not responsible for repairing the damage caused inside the property. The landlord advised the resident that he should submit an insurance claim for any damage caused to his property in its complaint response of 24 March 2023.
- Under the terms of the lease, the landlord was responsible for insuring the building. It was also expected to provide information about how residents can submit insurance claims. The landlord’s website provides clear information, including contact details, and advice on making claims. This was appropriate.
- The resident paid toward the costs of the building insurance as a service charge. As a leaseholder, he was able to raise a claim for the effect the flood had on his property. It is unclear if the landlord’s insurance company would approve a claim for personal belongings and/or decoration, or if these would be covered by the resident’s home contents insurance. As previously outlined, we cannot assess the decisions reached by insurance companies. The landlord’s advice to submit a claim was appropriate. However, there is no evidence that it did so before sending its complaint response on 24 March 2023, 3 months after the flood. It would have been better if it had provided this information sooner.
- The landlord discussed insurance claims with the resident again during a conversation it held with him on 5 May 2023. This followed the resident’s email of 24 March 2023, in which he said he was unclear about its response due his language ability. While it was appropriate for the landlord to discuss insurance claims with the resident to make sure he understood, it should have done so sooner, in response to his request. This was a failing. Therefore, there is no evidence that the resident submitted an insurance claim for the property damage that had occurred in December 2022 until 30 May 2023.
- The insurance company contacted the landlord on 30 May 2023 to request information about the claim. They did so before emailing the resident on 2 June 2023 to confirm they would complete repairs in the property. However, the landlord did not respond to the insurance team, which delayed the progress of the claim. This caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident chasing the landlord’s response for his claim to proceed. This was unreasonable. The insurance company requested information from the landlord again on 3 July 2023, but the landlord did not respond to them until 10 August 2023. This was unreasonable and was likely to have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident while waiting for his claim to proceed.
- The resident submitted a further insurance claim about another leak into the property in October 2023. The insurance company approved the claim, and they arranged for a contractor to visit the property. The contractor found another leak from a rainwater pipe and therefore works to address the damage inside the resident’s property were put on hold until the leak was repaired. It took the landlord a further 5 months before it completed the pipe repair in March 2024. Therefore, the damage caused to the resident’s property by the flood in December 2022, and the leak in October 2023, was not addressed before the landlord sent its final complaint response on 7 March 2024.
- The landlord addressed its handling of the matter in its complaint responses. It apologised for its delay in addressing the damage caused by a flood, and it recognised that this had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It also recognised that the insurance team had been waiting for it to approve the claim, and it offered the resident a payment of £50 for the delay.
- It was appropriate for the landlord to have apologised to the resident for the failings it recognised, and for the likely distress and inconvenience this had caused to him. However, it failed to acknowledge the additional time and trouble chasing a response from the landlord had caused to him. It also failed to consider the effect its delays had likely had on the resident while living in a property that was in a poor state of repair because the insurance company would not proceed with the claim and the repairs. It was appropriate for the landlord to have provided an offer of compensation, which it was able to do in keeping with its compensation, reimbursement, and redress policy to put right the matter. However, its offer of £50 was not proportionate to the detriment its handling of the matters had caused to the resident.
- The landlord’s delay in providing information to the resident about how to submit a claim, its delay in providing information to the insurance team about his claim, and its delay in addressing the leaking rainwater pipe prevented the resident’s claim from progressing. Therefore, the damage to his property and possessions was not addressed for an unreasonable amount of time. Taking all matters into account, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to his property and possessions.
- An increased award of compensation is due in keeping with our remedies guidance, which suggests a range of awards where, like here, maladministration is found that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord. An additional award of £350 is therefore ordered below as proportionate compensation for the detriment that may have been caused to the resident for the effect of the failings this investigation has identified. Additionally, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing.
- Given the resident submitted an insurance claim and repairs to the property are being addressed within his claim, we have not ordered the landlord to re-inspect the property and/or complete any repairs to the property. This is a matter for the resident to pursue with the insurance provider.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
- Did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint of 23 December 2022 until 6 January 2023. This was not in keeping with its corporate complaint policy which says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
- Did not respond to the resident’s complaint of 23 December 2022 until 24 March 2023 which was 47 working days later than the 15–working–day response timescale contained in the complaint policy in use at the time.
- Incorrectly said in its stage 1 response of 24 March 2023 that it had received the resident’s complaint on 30 November 2022, instead of 23 December 2022.
- Did not fully address the resident’s complaint. such as by explaining why out of hours staff had not answered his telephone call. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of the complaint. This says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
- Did not say if it had upheld the resident’s complaint about its failure to send a text message to the resident when he reported the flood. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.8 of the Code, which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for its decisions.
- Did not acknowledge or log the resident’s complaint escalation request of 24 March 2023. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.9 of the Code. This says, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one, it should be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.
- Did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 24 March 2023 until 15 August 2023. This was 78 working days later than its 20-working–day complaint policy response timescale.
- Did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 11 November 2023, until 24 November 2023. This was not in keeping with its complaint policy, which says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
- Did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 11 November 2023 until 6 December 2023. This was 2 working days later than its 15–working–day complaint policy response timescale.
- When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake from happening again. The landlord did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it had provided. This was a missed opportunity for it to consider the impact of its complaint handling delays and recognise that they may have caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident.
- An award of £150 compensation is therefore ordered below. This is in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where maladministration is found that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord. Additionally, we have ordered it to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the complaint.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was:
- Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
- Water leaks from a leaking roof and rainwater pipe.
- Damage caused to his property and personal possessions.
- The resident’s complaint.
- Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water leaks caused by flooding and a blocked drain.
- Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
Orders and recommendations
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
- Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of water leak issues, the resident’s insurance claims, and for its complaint handling failings.
- Pay the resident the £50 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
- Pay the resident an additional £850 total compensation made up as follows:
- £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with the landlord’s response to water leaks from flooding and a blocked drain.
- £250 for distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to water leaks from a leaking roof and rainwater pipe.
- £350 for distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to his property and possessions.
- £150 for time and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
- Inspect the property to assess if it is responsible for the completion of any outstanding repairs. If works are required, the landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property. If there are any outstanding repairs that the resident is responsible for, the landlord should clearly explain this to the resident in writing by making reference to his responsibilities under the lease.
- Complete a case review of its handling of the resident’s leak and damage reports to identify exactly why its failings in handling his reports happened, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again in the future. It should provide him and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review.
- The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.