London Borough of Enfield (202322368)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322368

London Borough of Enfield

18 June 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 handling of:
1. Reports of a leak following the installation of a new boiler.
2. Reports of damage to your belongings and level of redress.
3. The complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bed, first floor flat under a secure tenancy agreement which began on 13 February 2023.
The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities formally recorded for the resident. In correspondence with the landlord and this Service the resident said he had mental health conditions which were negatively impacted by the subject of this complaint.
The complaint centres around a leak in the resident’s property which were reported on 23 May 2023. The resident said that the leak was longstanding and caused over £4000 damage to his personal property, including a laptop and trainers. He did not feel that the compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient to reimburse him for the costs of the items that had been damaged, or the distress and inconvenience he had experienced.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 31 May 2023 and said:
1. The boiler in his property had been replaced, however during these visits the contractor’s had broken two kitchen cupboards and “something under the sink” which had caused a leak.
2. The landlord would attend to the leak within 9 days, and the resident felt that this was too long.
3. The landlord’s contractor said that it would attend to fix the cupboards. It had attended four times; however, the cupboard repairs were outstanding at the time of his complaint.
4. A contractor had attended earlier than booked on the day he raised this complaint, while he was at a hospital appointment. The contractor had told the resident that he would be marked as having given no access. The resident felt that this was inappropriate as the contractor had not attended in the allocated timeslot.
5. He was seeking compensation for the damaged items and “pain and suffering”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2023, in which it said:
1. The resident’s boiler had now been replaced and only one issue was outstanding, which was due to be repaired on the day of this complaint response.
2. It apologised for the conduct of its contractor and said that this was being addressed under “HR processes” and could not provide further details about this. It offered the details of the line manager to confirm that these procedures had been completed.
3. It had noted the value of the items and said that its compensation policy would not allow it to cover the amounts noted, particularly because the resident had not provided photographs or receipts of the damaged items.
4. It was providing a £500 goodwill payment comprised of £250 for the resident’s laptop and £250 for his trainers. It recommended that the resident claim for the shortfall via his home contents insurance.
5. It was offering a further £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the damage to his fixtures and fittings and for the conduct of its contractor.
The resident escalated his complaint on 3 July 2023 because he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered for his laptop and trainers. He said that he did not have contents insurance as this was prohibited by his religious beliefs.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 July 2023, in which it said:
1. It apologised for the delay in addressing the complaint on time.
2. It considered that the compensation awarded in the stage 1 complaint response was correct and in line with its policy.
3. Its position remained unchanged. It was still prepared to offer the compensation awarded but would not increase this.
The resident raised a second formal complaint on 28 September 2023 in which he said the leak was ongoing and had caused over £4000 of damage. He said that the landlord’s repairs teams had attended but were unable to trace the leak. He was seeking a repair of the leak, compensation and for all parties to be investigated.
The landlord issued its second stage 1 complaint response on 26 October 2023 in which it said:
1. It had previously considered the resident’s request for compensation for damaged goods and had offered a goodwill payment in respect of this. It said that it would not consider this element of the complaint again.
2. Its operatives had attended on 10 October 2023 to attempt to trace the leak. The resident reported that this had not been successful.
3. It had booked a follow up appointment with a “senior plumbing team member” on 13 October 2023 however the resident did not permit access. It said that it could not progress its investigations if the resident did not permit it access.
4. It had rebooked a further appointment for 2 November 2023 and asked the resident to confirm his availability.
There has been no evidence provided to show that this complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 3 November 2023 seeking additional compensation for the items which had been water damaged and for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
The resident raised a second formal complaint on 26 October 2023 related to the leak, damage, distress and inconvenience caused. There is no evidence that this complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process and therefore it has not completed the complaint procedure. On this basis, it has been included and referenced for context in the report below, however the determination made in this case will not include all aspects of this second complaint as it is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to consider at this time.
Notwithstanding this, it is not disputed that the repair to the leak raised in the resident initial complaint was not effectively remedied until early 2025. Given this, any orders associated with the determination in respect of the initial complaint will cover the period from the leak event through to the effective completion of the repair.
Should the resident remain dissatisfied with any aspect of the landlord’s second stage 1 complaint response that are not covered within this determination, he may wish to ask for it to be escalated or raise a new complaint.

Reports of a leak

In March 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property and noted that the boiler was 13 years old and in need of replacement. The works were completed in May, although the precise date is not clear from the landlord’s records. The resident had objected to the replacement of the boiler. The landlord’s contractor’s replaced pipework during the boiler installation and reported that “there were no leaks”.
On 23 May 2023 the resident reported a leak in his kitchen from the pipework. He said the leak caused damage to possessions and caused him distress and inconvenience daily from having to spend up to 2 hours mopping up the water. Additionally, he said that the contractors had damaged cupboards in his kitchen.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the installations for sanitation within the property. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The landlord’s housing repairs, maintenance and planned works policy set out 5 priorities for repair works as follows:
1. Critical – to be completed in under 4 hours.
2. Emergency – to be completed in under 24 hours.
3. Urgent – for any repairs that cause “discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance”, to be completed within 5 days.
4. Routine – for any reasons not causing discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance, to be completed within 30 days.
5. Major works – to be planned according to resourcing and need.
In response to the resident’s complaint and repair request, the evidence shows that the landlord took the following action:
1. Raised a routine works order to address the “leaking waste pipe to kitchen sink” on 23 May 2023. This was shown as complete on 31 May 2023 and noted that no leak could be found.
2. Raised a second works order as an emergency repair on 21 June 2023. The order was to identify a leak in the kitchen and noted that the resident was having to empty a bucket every 30 minutes. This works order was raised twice on the same day. One order was shown as completed the same day, the other on 30 June 2023.
3. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident sourced a private plumber around 3 July 2023 to identify the source of the leak, which was ongoing. The plumber was able to trace the leak to the kitchen waste or supply. The landlord raised a works order to attend, and this was shown as complete the following day.
4. Sent a plumber on 10 October 2023 to attempt to trace the ongoing leak. Its operative said that it could not find a leak.
5. Booked a follow up visit from a senior plumbing team member on 18 October 2023, following further concerns from the resident. The landlord said that the resident did not permit access for this visit.
6. Booked a further visit from the senior plumbing team member on 2 November 2023. The landlord’s repair records do not include any notes of this visit.
The resident told this Service that ultimately a surveyor attended in December 2024 who identified the source of the leak and raised works to complete it shortly after. The resident estimated that this was around January 2025. On this basis, the leak was first reported in May 2023 and was not resolved until around January 2025, a period of over 20 months.
Within the landlord’s repair records there is limited notes of the works, assessments, or investigations carried out at each visit. While the records show a particular order as completed, there is no context for what was done and this has made assessing the effectiveness of the landlord’s repair attempts very difficult. Record keeping is a key requirement of landlords and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code also requires landlords to keep sufficient records to assist in complaint resolution internally and by the Ombudsman.
The evidence shows that the landlord has apologised for the delays in rectifying the leaks and offered £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this, and for an interaction between the resident and a contractor. At the time of its first stage 1 complaint response, this was an appropriate level of compensation, however there is no evidence that the landlord reassessed this element of its compensation payment at stage 2. Given that the leak had been ongoing for around 2 months and had not been traced effectively by the landlord’s contractors at this point, this was not proportionate.
Overall, the leak was present in the resident’s property for a period of around 20 months having first been identified in May 2023 and repairs completed around January 2025. The landlord has a legal duty to make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time and the evidence does not show that it did this. It repeatedly visited the property without effectively tracing the leak and this left the resident without resolution for an extended period. The redress offered by the landlord is not sufficient for this and it has not undertaken wider learning or process changes to prevent a reoccurrence.
Taking these factors together, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak, and it must now provide additional redress to the resident, and assess what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence in future. Orders have been made in respect of this below.

Reports of damage to possessions

During his complaint, the resident said that various personal items were water damaged by the leak including:
1. A laptop computer which he valued at £3250.
2. A pair of trainers, which he valued between £800-3000.
3. Various other clothes and footwear.
The landlord’s housing repairs, maintenance and planned works policy says that compensation may be paid for damage caused to the resident’s property when it “can be attributed to accidental damage or poor working practices” of the landlord’s staff or contractors.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may consider making goodwill gestures in “where appropriate in some circumstances to accompany an apology”. It also says that the landlord will not consider paying compensation “where a claim can be made on home contents or buildings insurance”.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes that residents are expected to have this cover in place to insure their possessions against “accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage etc”. This position is affirmed in its new tenant handbook and in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The resident indicated that he did not have valid contents insurance in place at the time of the leaks occurring. He told the landlord he was Muslim and therefore he ”wouldn’t buy any [contents insurance] as it’s against the religion”.
While the Ombudsman appreciates the disruption and damage that a leak can cause, the landlord was entitled to rely on its policy and to refer the resident to his own contents insurance. In this instance, the resident’s lack of insurance does not require the landlord to extend its compensation policy to meet this shortfall. A recommendation has however been made in respect of this.
In cases such as this, the landlord should have considered whether it was appropriate to refer the matter to its own insurer for consideration. Notwithstanding this, it made goodwill payments for two valuable items that the resident had provided evidence of the cost. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Overall, there is evidence that the landlord considered the damage caused to the resident’s possessions and made a suitable goodwill compensation payment in line with its policies. It was not obligated to compensate for the possessions in full as these should have been the subject of home contents insurance. This requirement was clearly set out in its tenancy agreements, new resident handbook and policies. While the resident asserted that he was not able to hold this type of insurance, this position does not place a further legal or contractual obligation on the landlord to meet the costs he had incurred.
On this basis, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint. The landlord should however now consider whether it should refer the matter to its insurer.

Complaint handling

At the time of this complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process in which it committed to issuing complaint responses in the following timescales:
1. 10 working days at stage 1.
2. 30 working days at stage 2.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out a number of key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
1. Landlords must operate a two-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
2. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
3. Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaint procedure at the time of this complaint was not compliant with the Code, however this has since been rectified and the timescales in operation now are in line with those required by the Code.
The resident raised his initial complaint on 31 May 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2023. This was a period of 22 working days later and was outside of the timescales shown in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code. In response to this the evidence shows that the landlord apologised to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. In addition, there is no evidence seen that indicates any significant adverse impacts from this delay.
The delays in issuing its complaint response were relatively short and the landlord apologised to the resident for this. On this basis, the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolve this element of the complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord should consider whether additional training is required for its complaint handling staff to prevent delays in issuing complaint responses in future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks following the installation of a boiler.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s possessions and the level of redress.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling element of this complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1000 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble of pursuing the repair of the leak to completion over a protracted period. The landlord must pay this compensation directly to the resident and not apply it to his rent account. If the landlord has paid the £500 compensation it previously offered for distress and inconvenience (or any part of it), it may deduct this from the amount ordered above.
2. Pay the resident for the cost he incurred in procuring a private plumber in July 2023, on production of a suitable receipt or invoice.
3. Undertake a post-completion survey of the works to the boiler and leaking pipework, if it has not already done so. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the survey report.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to undertake a case review to identify:
1. Why there was a significant delay in identifying and rectifying the leak in the resident’s property.
2. What, if any, further or follow up works are required to repair any water damage or damp in the property. The landlord must compile a scheme of works showing how any identified repairing requirements will be completed in a period not exceeding a further 12 weeks.
3. What obstacles it has identified that caused the repair to require such an extended prior and how it might apply any learning to prevent a reoccurrence of the delays identified in this report. It must include a schedule showing how any learning identified will be implemented in a period not exceeding a further 12 weeks.
4. What learning might be implemented to improve the quality of its repair records to enable it to better respond and retain appropriate records for ongoing repairs and complaints. It must include a schedule showing its intentions as to how any learning identified will be implemented in a period not exceeding a further 12 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Contact the resident and establish if they wish to pursue a claim for damage to his possessions against its own insurers and provide details as to how they can do so.
2. If it has not already done so, to consider and implement what, if any, training or guidance that might assist for its complaint handling staff to consistently respond to complaints within the timescales shown in its complaint policy and the Code.
3. Research and promote the availability of culturally and religiously appropriate contents insurance policies.