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

Brighton and Hove City Council (202307465)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307465

Brighton and Hove City Council

29 January 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 multiple leaks resulting in damage to the property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat and the landlord, a local authority, is the freeholder. The building is a house which comprises 2 flats, with the landlord’s tenant occupying the upstairs flat.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 9 May 2023, stating that her property had been damaged due to a leak from the flat above. She said she had spent 7 months contacting its repairs team, and despite stressing the urgency, it had done nothing to resolve the issue. Its leasehold team had told her to claim on her own insurance, however, as the leak from the property above had caused the damage, she considered the advice inappropriate. She said that the way it had handled her complaint was unacceptable and had caused anxiety and stress.
  3. In its stage 1 response on 24 May 2023, the landlord apologised for how long it had taken to fully address the matter. It provided an explanation of the actions it had taken and said it had arranged the repairs. It also referred to identifying gaps in the external brickwork which was allowing water penetration into both properties. It assured the resident that it would monitor the work through to completion to avoid any further delays. It was also investigating her claim via its housing insurance team.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint the same day. She responded in detail to each of the landlord’s statements and repeated her concerns about the delays in resolving the matter.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 11 July 2023, the landlord said that it was unable to consider complaints which involved insurance claims via its complaints process. It was therefore unable to look at any issues relating to damage caused to her home. It advised her that once it had settled her insurance claim, she could return to its customer feedback team with any additional concerns.
  6. Following its stage 2 reply, the resident asked the landlord to reconsider its response. She said that her complaint was not solely about the insurance claim and was about its lack of communication. It provided an updated stage 2 response on 28 August 2023 and gave further explanations. It offered £200 compensation which comprised £150 for service failure concerning the insurance claim, and £50 for raising her expectations regarding the works to the interior of her home.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She wanted compensation for the landlord’s lack of communication and for her time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence she stated that the situation had caused her anxiety, stress, and impacted her mental health and wellbeing. While we appreciate that the situation would likely have been distressing, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts. We can, however, consider any inconvenience or distress that was likely caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. In the resident’s correspondence she stated that she was considering pursuing legal action against the landlord. The evidence provided to this Service shows correspondence between the resident and landlord’s solicitors. A settlement was agreed for damage to the property without the matter progressing to court. As such it is not necessary for the Ombudsman to deal with that matter as this is resolved. We have, therefore, considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances and whether it should be responsible to pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Reports of multiple leaks

  1. The landlord’s repair obligations under the lease include the structure, exterior and shared parts of the building. This includes the roof and exterior walls. The landlord’s leasehold handbook states that repairs for which it is responsible, should be reported to its repairs helpdesk. The handbook also includes that:
    1. Its insurance team procure and manage the buildings insurance policy. Repairs due to escape of water are claimed under this cover, and not passed on to leaseholders.
    2. Where there is damage to ‘the flat’ from an insured peril, the leaseholder should ensure that the damage is rectified. If this is from another flat, the leaseholder should get confirmation from the neighbour that the leak has been fixed. Its customer service team will assist where a leaseholder has been unable to get confirmation.
    3. Where interior decoration, plasterwork, fixtures and fittings are damaged, the leaseholder should contact the insurer on the number printed on the policy booklet. The insurers aim is to keep the process as simple as possible and there should not be any forms to complete.
    4. Where contents such as furniture or electrical goods have been damaged, leaseholders should claim on their own contents insurance.
  2. The landlord’s records of 16 February 2023, show that there was a crack in the right hand front wall. It required scaffold in order to complete repairs. Its records also show that the resident contacted its insurance team in March 2023 to make a claim for the damage to her home.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 May 2023, stating that she had reported a leak from the flat above in September 2022. She had been reporting water pouring down her kitchen and living room walls for weeks. It had scheduled work for 14 October 2022 but no one had attended on the day. It was not until November 2022 when it attended to fill gaps in the mortar. It had failed to send a surveyor to assess where the water was entering her home and the situation had worsened in the subsequent months.
  4. The resident also stated that the plumber, who attended on 22 April 2023, had informed her of 3 leaks from the upstairs flat, which had contributed to damage to her ceiling, walls, floor, kitchen, and furniture. She stated that while it had since repaired the leaks to the flat above, it had failed to compensate her for the damage caused to her flat. It had also failed to survey the outside walls and repair damage to the roof, mortar, or brickwork to prevent further penetration. It had been aware of the repairs required to the walls for months. Her assertion reflects its records and demonstrates that it failed to progress the repairs since February 2023.
  5. The resident said that the leasehold team had told her to claim for damages via her own insurance. However, following legal advice, she was told to claim via the landlord’s insurance. She said she had been ignored, treated disrespectfully, and intended to pursue legal action. In her complaint of 9 May 2023, she repeated her concerns and timeline of events.
  6. The evidence demonstrates that the resident continued to send correspondence to the landlord’s leasehold, insurance, and repairs teams. She repeated her complaint and asked for responses. She said that it was a constant struggle to speak to someone who could give the information she needed to resolve the matter.
  7. It is evident that the landlord directed the resident to multiple teams and failed to co-ordinate its approach. This would have added to the resident’s frustration. It is not known why its leasehold team did not direct the resident to the buildings insurance team as set out in its leaseholder handbook.
  8. The resident advised the landlord on 17 May 2023 that she had not heard anything from its insurance team and had temporarily had to move out of her flat. It had been 3 weeks since a “major” leak from the flat above and 7 months since first reporting leaks into her home. She repeated that she would pursue legal action if she did not receive a response.
  9. The landlord’s records of the following day refer to a works order to investigate the roof and carry out any necessary repairs. However, there was no evidence to suggest when the work commenced or that it had appropriately updated the resident.
  10. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised for how long it had taken to fully address the leaks and said that it appreciated her frustration. It also apologised for the impact this had on her, and agreed it was unacceptable. Its repairs records show that it first received reports of water ingress on 21 January 2022. It raised a job to its roofing team to carry out an inspection which it attended on 25 January 2022. It identified that it needed to erect scaffold to complete the repairs.
  11. The landlord said that as the building contained leaseholders, it required a consultation process. This could, unfortunately, take several months to complete. As there had been a lack of progress with the consultation, it decided to proceed without it to prevent further delays. It attended on 20 November 2022 and filled a number of gaps in the external brickwork. The problem seemed to have began due to blocked gutters, however, the surveyor confirmed that these were clear and appeared to have resolved the issue.
  12. The landlord said that it had completed repairs to the flat above, the same day they were reported in April 2023. The operative who attended had reported further gaps in the external brickwork which were allowing water ingress into both properties. A further job was raised and it confirmed that its roofing team would visit on 30 May 2023. It would undertake any possible repairs on the day and raise any further required work as a matter of urgency.
  13. The landlord assured the resident that it would monitor the works through to completion to ensure there were no further delays. Her claim was being investigated by its housing insurance team who had received her information.
  14. The landlord’s response was appropriate in apologising for the delays the resident had experienced. It also demonstrated that it had investigated its repairs records and gave assurances that it would begin repairs. However, it had been aware of the repairs since 2022 and failed to progress these. This demonstrates a record keeping failure. It also referred to its consultation process but failed to explain why it had not progressed. It should also be noted that the resident is the only leaseholder of the building given there are only 2 flats.
  15. In the resident’s escalation request she stated that she was the sole leaseholder and was unaware of a consultation. She had not been informed that a job had been raised to a roofing contractor or of their attendance in January 2022. She set out a comprehensive timeline of events providing dates and details of her communication and repair concerns.
  16. The resident contacted the landlord’s insurance team again in July 2023 and also contacted local councillors and MP’s for assistance. She reported crumbling plaster, lifting floorboards, blistering paint, moisture readings of 30%, warped wooden windowsills, damp, mould and that her kitchen cupboards were disintegrating.
  17. In the landlord’s response to a councillor on 10 July 2023 it acknowledged that its response to the resident’s reports had been unacceptable. It shared her desire to resolve the matter without further delay. It said that the matter was complex and while some issues were resolved, others required further examination. It had arranged to visit her on 12 July 2023 to discuss the issues in person. It also stated that it was reviewing her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process and would cover all aspects of her dissatisfaction.
  18. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that matters involving an insurance claim should not be dealt with via its complaints procedure. It was therefore unable to look at any issues relating to the damage to her home. However, once the claim was settled, she could return with any aspect that had not formed part of the claim. It explained that there was a backlog of claims and it had a procedure in place to deal with these in chronological order. All damages and associated costs would form part of her claim. The required work was being planned and officers were attending the building the following day to clarify details. It would provide an update within the next 3 weeks. The cost for the work would be determined by the lease and service charge.
  19. The landlord’s response was appropriate in that its insurance team would consider her claim, however, it failed to address all elements of her complaint. This included her comments about the consultation process and its communication failings. It also failed to show any empathy for her situation or demonstrate any learning from the complaint. While it stated it would provide an update in relation to the work within the next 3 weeks, it would have been helpful to have provided an estimated timescale to complete the works.
  20. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident responded the same day stating that her complaint was not about the ongoing insurance claim. Her complaint focussed on the various departments failure to fulfil its duties. She had wanted to address the flaws in its system and the overall disrespect and disregard for her situation. It had also failed to inform her that it would not respond to her complaint, due to having an insurance claim, at stage 1. She was now left in a state of uncertainty and frustration. She asked for confirmation on how it would prioritise her insurance claim. She had raised her concerns in September 2022 and there had been a lack of coordination between departments, leading to a situation where she had been left being passed from one department to another.
  21. The landlord provided an update on 19 July 2023. It had spoken with the resident and discussed her frustration in having to make contact numerous times for guidance and information. It had appointed a project manager who would act as a single point of contact and coordinate the work. A drone survey had been undertaken of the roof and it was arranging for scaffolding to inspect further. It said that it may need to undertake a consultation depending on the value of the work. It would also visit the flat above to assess any defects and required work.
  22. The landlord sent a revised stage 2 letter on 28 August 2023. It said that it had intended to consult, however, communications had failed as its leasehold team had not received a request. Therefore, no consultation had taken place previously. It had recommended a review of its process. It offered £50 for its error in raising her expectations, that it would complete work inside her home. It acknowledged that the delay from its insurance team was unacceptable and offered £150 compensation.
  23. The evidence shows that in November 2023 both parties solicitors were in communication. This suggests that the repairs remained outstanding. An expert report shows an estimate of £7,150 to complete repairs which would take 2 to 3 weeks. It also recommended temporary accommodation while the work was undertaken. In further communication between the parties legal representatives the landlord stated that it failed to carry out its obligations as a lessor. However, it had not accepted the expert report and appointed its own surveyor.
  24. While the landlord has offered compensation of £200 for raising the resident’s expectations, and for the delay from its insurance team, it failed to make any recompense for its poor communication and the distress caused. While it demonstrated some learning from the complaint, in that it would review its consultation process, it failed to demonstrate how it would improve its internal communication and prevent future delays. For these reasons, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple leaks resulting in damage to the property. We have made an award of £250 compensation which is in line with our remedies guidance in the range of £100 to £600.

The associated complaint

  1. Prior to our investigation, we asked the landlord to provide us a copy of its relevant complaints policy used at the time of the resident’s complaint. This was not provided, however, its website states that it operates a 2-stage process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. In the absence of the requested information, we will therefore base our findings on the policy on its website.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 9 May 2023 and the landlord responded on 24 May 2023, 11 working days later and 1 working day later than its complaint policy timescale. She asked to escalate her complaint on 24 May 2023 and the landlord responded 33 working days later on 11 July 2023. This was 13 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
  3. The delays were not excessive, however, this would likely have added further to the resident’s frustration. While the landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response, it failed to provide any reason for its late response, demonstrate any learning from the complaint, or say how it would prevent delays in the future. For this reason, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple leaks resulting in damage to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £500, broken down as follows:
      1. £200 offered in its revised stage 2 response. (This can be deducted if already paid).
      2. £250 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its communication failures.
      3. £50 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling delays.
      4. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.