Eastbourne Borough Council (202427422)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427422

Eastbourne Borough Council

30 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 response to the residents:
1. Reports of water ingress into the property.
2. Reports concerning the conduct of landlord staff.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 3 May 2022. The property is a second floor, 2-bedroom flat, within a 2-storey block. The landlord, a local authority, is the freeholder. The landlord has indicated it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident reported an issue with the guttering being blocked on 30 September 2023, the landlord raised a repair on 20 October 2023 for the guttering to be assessed and cleared. Its repair notes indicate the guttering was “overflowing with vegetation”. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 29 October 2023 that the blocked guttering was causing water ingress inside her property. The landlord advised on 30 October 2023 that it had to move the arranged appointment from 9 November 2023 to 22 November 2023. It states it was unable to carry out the work and passed the work onto a specialist contractor, its repair records show this works order as cancelled. The landlord re-raised this works order on 6 February 2024 and recorded it as completed on 2 March 2024. A further works order raised on 22 February 2024 to replace the “missing swan neck to the high-level gutter” was recorded as completed on 23 March 2024. The resident completed an online repair request on 14 May 2024, as she was still experiencing water ingress into her property. She included pictures to evidence how much water she had collected after 30 minutes of rainfall. On 22 May 2024, the landlord raised a works order to “unblock each of the four rainwater stacks”, this was recorded as completed on 19 August 2024.
The resident made a complaint on 28 June 2024. Her complaint included, but was not limited to:
1. She had not received clarification that the gutters had been cleared and in May 2024 submitted a further request.
2. She received a call from a member of staff in response to this which she described as “extremely rude”. She also alleged that the member of staff insulted her on numerous previous occasions whilst in her property. She also had not had an update since 22 May 2024 from this member of staff.
3. She said the issue had taken a toll on her mental health and financially impacted her as she had spent money on temporary fixes and protective measures to prevent further deterioration.
The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 July 2024 and advised it was experiencing “lower staffing levels” so it was unlikely it would response within its policy timescale. It said it would investigate and respond to her complaint as soon as it was able to.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman, the landlord and a local councillor on 7 October 2024, within this email the resident said the situation remained unresolved and gave more detail of her complaint points. She stated to still be living with a kitchen that leaks during every rainfall.
The resident chased a response from the landlord on 28 October 2024 and said as it was 82 working days since she had received her acknowledgement, she requested her complaint be escalated.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 October 2024, which included:
1. It said 2 appointments were cancelled due to “insufficient time being allocated to the jobs” and a further report was cancelled in November 2023 as it was considered “a duplicate order”.
2. It confirmed further works orders were raised in March 2024 and again in September 2024 and that both had been recorded as completed.
3. It confirmed scaffolding would be erected on 14th November 2024 for its contractor to remove the solar panels and investigate the roof leak.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the length of time it had taken to address the issue, its administrative errors, the time and trouble spent by the resident following up the works, any distress caused and its delayed complaint response.
5. It provided a statement and an apology from an investigative manager about the resident’s staff complaint.
6. It asked the resident to provide quotes in relation to the damage caused by the water ingress, which it would then consider alongside compensation due under its compensation policy.
The landlord acknowledged a stage 2 complaint on 29 October 2024. It noted the contents of the resident’s email sent on 7 October 2024 as the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 24 November 2024, which included:
1. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said it was clear that there had been several service failures and apologised for the lack of communication, delays, and that works had still not progressed, despite promises that they would.
2. It said an appropriate investigation had been carried out regarding the resident’s complaint about staff conduct but apologised if any comments caused upset. It said training was currently ongoing to all surveyors to improve the service provided.
3. It advised that a different surveyor would contact the resident to arrange and inspection to assess the damage caused internally and following this it would communicate an offer of compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 November 2024 and said she appreciated the acknowledgement of certain issues but wanted to express her “continued disappointment with the lack of meaningful action and attention to detail”. This included:
1. The work to remove the solar panels did not go ahead as promised.
2. There was no clear plan of action to resolve the guttering issue.
In communication with the Ombudsman in May 2025, the resident confirmed the roof leak had been fixed, the gutters were cleared but the brackets that held the guttering remained broken. She also had not had a response regarding compensation for the damage to the property, the incident regarding the scaffolding, and the costs she had incurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident is seeking financial compensation for damage to the property and costs incurred during this time period. The Ombudsman will not consider claims for financial loss. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to award damages, nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess liability and determine loss. These 2 are matters within the jurisdiction of the court and the Ombudsman cannot provide a legal determination. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice to pursue this matter.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Whilst we cannot consider financial loss, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident provided the landlord with invoices and receipts on 25 November 2024; within this communication the resident detailed an incident regarding alleged negligence surrounding the scaffolding erected which resulted in a gas disconnection. No evidence has been seen to show this was brought as a formal complaint to the landlord; therefore, this issue will not be investigated. A landlord must have the opportunity to resolve a complaint through all stages of its complaint procedure before the Ombudsman can assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s response.
Within her complaint, the resident expressed concern surrounding comments made regarding her nationality. It’s outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions or inaction of a landlord amounted to discrimination. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide, and the resident may wish to consider independent legal advice on this matter. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s responses were appropriate, fair and reasonable, which is what I have focused on within my determination.
Evidence has been seen which suggests the situation has directly impacted the household’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between this case and the residents’ wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

Water ingress

Under the terms of the lease the resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the premises in good repair and condition. The freeholder is responsible for maintaining the exterior of the property, including the roof and guttering. The landlord therefore has an obligation to maintain the exterior of the property in reasonable condition and good repair.
The landlord’s repair priorities state it aims to respond to urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 28 days. It describes clearing gutters that are likely to cause damage as an urgent repair.
It is not disputed that the property had issues with water ingress or that the issue was not resolved for some time and would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The resident first reported the issue with the gutters on 30 September 2023; the landlord raised a works order on 20 October 2023 and was aware of water ingress into the property shortly after this on 29 October 2023. The landlord has not indicated a reason for the delay in raising this repair or demonstrated that it acknowledged this delay. In accordance with its repair priorities this should have been raised as an urgent repair and attended within 7 days. It is not clear from the landlord’s repair records when it attended, it states it could not complete the work so passed this to a specialist contractor. It is not evident the landlord took any action following this until 6 February 2024, when it re-raised the repair. The landlord failed to follow its own policy in this instance, this avoidable delay was not reasonable, and the resident was left to experience water ingress over the winter months.
In its stage 1 response on 28 October 2024, the landlord said it had cancelled 2 appointments after initially raising the repair in October 2023 due to “insufficient time being allocated”. It also noted a repair in November 2023 being cancelled as it was considered to be a duplicate order. The repair records the landlord provided do not contain this detail. In addition, within this response, the landlord advised repairs raised in March 2024 and September 2024 were marked as completed and a further order for scaffolding had been raised. The landlord did not elaborate on what works were carried out at these visits and the repair records provided do not contain this detail. In a complaint about a repair, the landlord should be relying on its repair records to offer clarity. As such, the records should be sufficiently detailed enough to show what repairs took place and when.
In this case, the Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered to an extent by the poor quality of the landlord’s repair records that were provided. The landlord’s repair records lacked detail, such as when the repair was reported, details about the actual work that took place, and reasons for cancellation. The records were therefore difficult to follow. Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes were not operating effectively.
The landlord apologised within its stage 2 response for the works not progressing despite it saying they would. The landlord did not, however then advise when the works would take place which was not appropriate. In addition, the landlord advised a surveyor would attend to assess the damage, it provided a surveyor’s report dated 6 December 2024, which noted water ingress being contained by the resident in bowls and that it “had not done anything significant to resolve the issue” reported over a year ago. Communications between this surveyor and the resident detail the roofing leak to have been resolved in December 2024, again the landlord’s repair records do not contain this detail. This amount of time is far from reasonable and would have caused increasing distress for the resident who had to live with ongoing water ingress for a prolonged period due to the inaction of the landlord.
Part of the resident’s complaint detailed an issue with a member of staff while inspecting the property, no records of this inspection, or follow-on remedial actions have been seen, however it is noted this was prior to the resident reporting an issue with the guttering. The landlord failed to evidence that it fully investigated what had caused the water ingress or inspected the resident’s property following these reports in a timely manner. It also failed to evidence any conclusive investigation as to why the works had not progressed which was not reasonable.
The landlord throughout its complaint process, agreed it would compensate the resident in line with its compensation policy, but it failed to come to a concluding figure. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that this is still outstanding at the time of this determination. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider its responsibility for damage caused in the circumstance; however, it is not reasonable to have not concluded its position to the resident. An order has been made for the landlord to provide the resident its position on this matter.
In summary, from the evidence provided it is not clear the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations or sought to mitigate the impact of the water ingress, between October 2023 and December 2024. It is reasonable to conclude that it would have rained multiple times during this period. The landlord did not fully put things right for the resident and failed to take into consideration the full detriment she had gone through and was continuing to experience. The resident experienced water ingress in her property which was exacerbated and prolonged by the landlord’s failure to address her concerns in a timely manner. Taking the above into consideration a finding of maladministration has been made.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience, and the residents’ circumstances will be taken into account.
The landlord apologised for its service failures and agreed to consider an amount of financial redress to the resident for damages but failed to conclude and offer the resident an amount within its complaint process. The landlord made no offer of financial redress for any distress or inconvenience caused within its complaint process. It is of concern that even after a complaint investigation, the resident continued to experience a similar poor service from the landlord. This indicates that the landlord did not learn sufficient lessons from its complaint process.
The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1000 compensation. This is equal to £100 per month for the avoidable delays to repairs, taking into consideration the distress and inconvenience experienced, and the time and trouble spent in chasing the landlord for updates. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where the landlord’s failings had a significant impact on the resident.

Staff conduct

The resident had expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s staff conduct as she felt the staff member had been rude, insulted her, and made comments about her nationality. This service will not form a view on whether the staff members’ actions themselves were appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available. For staff conduct complaints, landlords would be expected to carry out an investigation so that it can reach an informed, and therefore fair and reasonable, decision on the complaint raised.
This service has seen evidence to show the landlord had some form of process for complaints about staff. In an internal email dated 7 October 2024, the landlord detailed the process and asked the relevant manager to investigate and provide a statement for the response to the complaint. Although this service has not seen the internal records relating to this investigation, within the landlord’s stage 1 response it provided a statement from the relevant manager and apologised for the residents’ experience and any distress or upset caused which was reasonable. In addition, its stage 2 response further apologised for any potential upset that had been caused, and it advised that staff training was currently in progress.
The landlord acted in a reasonable manner in this situation; therefore, a finding of no maladministration has been found in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the concerns and clearly communicated this back to the resident.

Complaint

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process at the time of the resident’s complaint. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints usually within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints usually within 20 working days. Its policy states that if there are special circumstances, it may require more time.
The resident made a complaint on 28 June 2024, which the landlord formally acknowledged on 4 July 2024. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 28 October 2024, some 4 months later. This far exceeds the landlord’s policy timescales. Although it is noted the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and advised it would be unable to meet its policy timescales, it gave no indication as to when she could expect a complaint response, which was not reasonable. The resident contacted the Ombudsman 3 months after making her complaint as she had not received an update from the landlord and the issue remained unresolved. She also made the landlord aware of her concerns directly on 29 July 2024. It is not evident she received a response to her concerns, which again is not reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged a stage 2 complaint on 29 October 2024 but provided no record of the resident’s escalation request from this time, it is reasonable to conclude that it took the resident’s email on 28 October 2024 chasing a stage 1 response as a request to escalate. It noted an email dated 7 October 2024 to be a stage 2 complaint. In the circumstance, the landlord should have considered the contents of this email within its stage 1 investigation, this would have demonstrated its commitment to resolving the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity.
Although the landlord’s stage 2 response was timely, it again gave no timescale for a response within its formal acknowledgement. Its response failed to put things right for the resident. It would have been appropriate in the circumstance for the landlord to have inspected the property, booked in the repair works with the resident, and concluded its offer of compensation within its complaint response.
In summary the landlord failed it failed to follow its policy timeframes for responding to the resident’s complaint. The resident spent time and trouble contacting the Ombudsman, other third parties alongside contacting the landlord pursuing a response. Taking the above into consideration, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.
It is not disputed that the resident spent a considerable amount of time and trouble pursuing her complaint in search of a resolution. The landlord apologised for its delayed stage 1 response and the time and trouble spent pursuing the complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 for the time and trouble and delays experienced throughout its complaint process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports concerning the conduct of landlord staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in witing to the resident for the time taken to resolve the issues to the roof/guttering and the distress and inconvenience experienced.
2. Pay the resident £1000 for the failures identified in its response to reports of water ingress.
3. Pay the resident £200 for the time and trouble spent in pursuing her complaint.
4. Compensation is to be paid directly to the leaseholder and not offset against any arrears in line with the Housing Ombudsman guidance on remedies.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange to inspect the guttering at the resident’s property and provide the Ombudsman and the resident a plan of any remedial works required. This is to include timescales.
2. Consider its position and provide an update to the resident on its compensation offer for the damage and costs incurred.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its operational monitoring of outstanding repairs, ensuring follow up repairs are raised in a timely manner and any delays are communicated to residents.
2. A review of its record keeping processes with particular reference to ensuring all relevant staff, including contractors, are fully aware of their own and the landlord’s record management procedures and adhere to these.
3. A review of its operational complaint management to ensure:
  1. It has in place sufficient resources and oversight to achieve its policy target timescales to respond and communicates with residents about ongoing delays.
  2. It fulfils any commitment made in its complaint responses.
  3. Offers of redress are proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 12 weeks of the date of this report.