Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Leeds City Council (202435783)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435783

Leeds City Council

22 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak from a neighbour’s property and the associated damp and mould.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident became a leaseholder in August 2022 for a maisonette, which is within a block of 4 maisonettes. Prior to this the resident had a secure tenancy. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
  2. The resident first reported damp and mould issues to his landlord in 2020 and 2021. The landlord’s records state this was likely being caused by a failure in the wet room shower in the neighbours property. It is unclear if any works or further investigations were carried out.
  3. In April 2023 the neighbour reported their shower was leaking. A surveyor inspected the neighbours property. It was unclear what works, if any, were completed following this. 
  4. On 8 January 2024 the resident reported he had damp and mould. On 2 February 2024 he told the landlord he thought this could be due to a leak from the shower in his neighbours property. The resident told us water leaked into his entrance hallway every time his neighbour had a shower.
  5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 18 June 2024. He said he has had damp and mould issues for many years. He asked the landlord why it had not gained access to his neighbour’s property to resolve the issue.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 July 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It said the resident reported damp and mould on 2 February 2024. It was liaising with his neighbour, but it could not provide any information or updates due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). It said it had offered to inspect the resident’s property but he had refused.
  7. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 25 July 2024 as he felt the landlord was not taking any action to resolve the leak.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 August 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It said it had inspected the resident and neighbour’s property in 2021 and carried out repairs to address what was thought to be causing the issues. It was liaising with his neighbour but due to GDPR it could not provide any further information. It said it would not charge a fee for inspecting the resident’s property and apologised if he had been told this.
  9. The neighbours property became empty on 10 October 2024. On 25 November 2024 the landlord completed works to the neighbours property which included fitting a new shower, new flooring, regrouting the tiles, damp and mould treatment to the walls and ceiling, and resealing the wall edges.
  10. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 30 October 2024. The resident said it told him it was not responsible for carrying out internal repairs to rectify the internal damage to his flat from the leak, damp and mould.
  11. The resident approached our service as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Leak, damp and mould

  1. We find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the neighbours property and the associated damp and mould. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. Under the lease the landlord agreed to maintain and repair the structure of the building. The resident was responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing all internal fixtures, fittings and decorations inside their property. The resident pays a service charge which includes the cost of buildings insurance, which means he can make a claim for the cost of repairing damage to the interior of his property.
  3. The resident reported damp and mould issues to the landlord in 2020 and 2021. As the resident was a secure tenant at this time, the landlord arranged for the damp and mould to be washed and treated. In December 2021 its operative said they thought the damp and mould in the resident’s entrance hallway was as a result of a failure of the neighbour’s wet room shower. They said it needed to complete repairs to the neighbour’s property before any works could begin in the resident’s property. It is not known what works, if any, were completed by the landlord at this time.
  4. In April 2023 the neighbour reported their shower was leaking. The operative who inspected the neighbours property said the wet room was ‘in a bad way’ and needed a surveyor. A surveyor attended in September 2023. The landlord did not provide us with a copy of his report so it is unclear if any issues were highlighted that were affecting the resident’s property. Works were raised to renew tiles around the bottom of the neighbours shower. There was no evidence this work was completed. The landlord’s records show it closed the job in December 2023 due to no access to the neighbours property.
  5. In January and February 2024 the resident reported further issues with leaks, damp and mould. He said he thought this was due to the neighbours shower. Under the terms of the lease the landlord had a duty to ensure the resident’s property was watertight in relation to the structure of the property. The landlord was aware there had been previous issues with the neighbours wet room, and the resident explicitly said this. The landlord should have responded to this aspect of the complaint. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to draw from its previous records to ensure it had a holistic view of previous investigations and works. There was no evidence it did this and instead treated it as a new issue. This was not resolution focused.
  6. The landlord had already instructed a surveyor to inspect the neighbour’s property on 2 February 2024 in relation to a separate disrepair claim. It was unclear if the landlord notified the surveyor about the issues the resident had reported. The surveyors report said no faults could be found with the shower. However, a job was raised to regrout the tiles around the shower and reseal the floor. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to update him on the outcome of this inspection. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident in a position where he did not know if the leak, damp and mould would be resolved. This led him to reporting the same issues several times and chasing updates. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage his expectations.
  7. In both its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord told the resident its next steps would be to carry out repairs in the neighbours property. However, it said it could not provide any information about these works due to GDPR. The landlord sent internal emails on 1 July 2024 which said the only way to resolve the complaint would be to complete the repairs to the neighbours flat. This implied a direct link between the neighbours property condition and the issues the resident was experiencing. While landlord’s are expected to take their GDPR responsibilities seriously, they also need to take a balanced approach and ensure they communicate effectively. It was not clear the landlord did so in this case. It could have provided the resident with information that was relevant to the property condition issues he was experiencing, as long as this did not contain protected information about the neighbour.
  8. Between 17 April and 16 June 2024 the landlord offered to inspect the resident’s property 3 times. The resident refused because he was told he would have to pay for an inspection. The landlord’s records are unclear when it first told the resident this. On 23 July 2024 in response to the resident concerns about the fees, it confirmed it would charge him because he was a leaseholder. It was not until its stage 2 response on 22 August 2024 that the landlord apologised and said this was incorrect. Had the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property in April 2024, it may have resulted in an earlier resolution. It would have also been able to consider appropriate support or interim measures to minimise the damage being caused to the resident’s property. Instead the resident was left to deal with the leak, damp and mould himself for a significant period.
  9. Between 14 March and 24 April 2024 the landlord attempted to contact the neighbour. It tried to arrange access 5 times to complete the repairs recommended by the surveyor. In May 2024 the neighbour refused to allow the works to go ahead. The landlord made a decision not to take any enforcement action as it knew the neighbour was moving. The landlord continued to make attempts to gain access in August and September 2024 but was unsuccessful. Although this was a difficult situation, the landlord did not show it had met its repairing responsibilities to ensure the resident’s flat was watertight. The period of delay until the neighbour moved out compounded this failure as it prolonged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  10. The neighbours property became void in October 2024 and the landlord completed the repairs to this flat on 25 November 2024. Some of these works were recommended by the surveyor in February 2024, 9 months prior. There was no evidence the landlord updated the resident that it had completed these works. However, the resident told us its operatives showed him water was getting behind the tiles in the neighbours wet room and had caused the leaks into his hallway. The resident told us he has not had a leak since the works were completed on the neighbours flat.
  11. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 30 October 2024. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of this report so it is unclear what the outcome was. On 12 November 2024 the resident said the landlord told him it would not complete internal repairs to rectify the damage caused by the leak, damp and mould. It is correct that under the lease the resident is responsible for internal repairs. However, the landlord should have considered its position due to the delays in it repairing the neighbours property to ensure the residents flat was watertight.
  12. In response to the resident’s concerns that he would have to pay for the internal repairs himself, in November 2024 the landlord told him to make a claim through its buildings insurance. This was in line with its leaseholder guide which says the building insurance policy covers damage caused by the escape of water. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of this in its internal complaints procedure. Its failure to do this extended the resolution date of the complaint at the detriment to the resident.
  13. The resident told us he did not make a claim through the landlord’s buildings insurance as he was concerned this would increase his payments. The landlord did provide contact details in November 2024 if the resident had questions or concerns about making an insurance claim. There was no evidence the resident raised these concerns with the landlord. Although the resident has told us his entrance hallway wall is still damaged from the leak, damp and mould, it would not be fair or reasonable to hold the landlord accountable for the delay after November 2024. The resident was aware he had the choice to make an insurance claim. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to address his concerns about the cost implications of making an insurance claim.
  14. In summary there were significant delays in the landlord investigating the cause of the leak, damp and mould. There was also a delay in it carrying out works to the neighbours property to resolve the leak. Although it is recognised that the some of these delays were outside the landlord’s control, it failed to show it acted reasonably to ensure the resident’s flat was watertight. There was evidence of poor communication and the landlord did not consider interim measures to limit the damage being caused to the resident’s property. Although the landlord informed the resident he could claim through its buildings insurance, it did not do this within its complaints procedure.
  15. The landlord did not acknowledge any of its failings and therefore did not show it had learnt from the complaint. It also did not put things right. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident, an order has been made for the landlord pay him £400 compensation. This is in line with our remedy’s guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Complaint handling

  1. We find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. The landlord’s compliments and complaint’s policy states it will acknowledge complaints with 3 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 18 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 June 2024. This was outside its target timescale of 3 working days.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 July 2024, this was within its agreed timescale. In its response it did not recognise the resident had reported damp and mould issues prior to February 2024. This shows the landlord did not fully investigate the resident’s complaint, missing the opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 25 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 31 July 2024. This was just outside its target timescale of 3 working days.
  6. The landlord issued it stage 2 response on 22 August 2024, in line with its agreed timescales. In both its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord said it could not provide any information about the issues raised by the resident due to GDPR. It did not respond to the resident’s request that it confirmed his issues were related to the neighbour’s property. This did not come across as proportionate as the resident had a right to know what was causing damage to his property, and what the landlord was doing to resolve it. When the resident said in his escalation request he was feeling unheard, the landlord should have looked into GPDR and considered if it could provide him with more information. The landlord did not provide the resident with a resolution to his complaint.
  7. In summary there was a delay in the landlord acknowledging and escalating the complaint. The landlord failed to investigate the complaint issues raised by the resident and failed to provide a resolution within its complaints procedure. The landlord did not show it had learnt from this complaint, and it did not put things right. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused to him.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the neighbour’s property and the associated damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £500 compensation. The compensation is broken down as:
      1. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of his reports of a leak, damp, and mould.
      2. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident for the landlord’s handling of his associated complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review its staff training around GDPR to ensure its staff are providing correct information to residents in its response to repairs and complaints.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to address his concerns about the cost implications of making a claim through its building insurance.