Gravesham Borough Council (202322899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322899

Gravesham Borough Council

19 December 2024

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. The resident’s reports of ongoing leaks and water ingress into her property from the flat above.
2. Communication with the resident about the repairs.
3. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the neighbour.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property. The property is a ground floor 2-bedroom flat, which she purchased in 2017. The landlord is a local authority and the freeholder of the property.
Through email correspondence with the landlord the resident reported leaks from the upstairs property into her kitchen and bathroom in 2022 and 2023. At the same time, she reported water ingress into the cloakroom area of her home from the external stairs that lead up to her neighbours flat. Following a reported leak into her bathroom in July 2023, the bathroom ceiling collapsed on 15 July 2023.
The resident made a formal complaint on 17 July 2023. She set out a history of the issues she had experienced since buying her home. She said that:
1. there had been continuous water ingress from the external stairs. This was a slow leak that occurred when there was a heavy downpour of rain. She had reported this in 2018, 2022 and 2023. Despite a recent repair to the area the leak continued. She wanted the landlord to provide her with a clear action plan to deal with this leak.
2. despite sending several emails, her housing officer had failed to reply to her. She had spoken with the housing officer on the telephone, but they had been unable to provide her with an update as to what the landlord was doing to deal with the leak from the stairs. Further, the officer had promised to call her back and did not do so.
3. she had raised an insurance claim with her insurer and wanted the landlord to compensate her £50 for the excess within the policy that she would have to pay.
4. she had reported a leak into her bathroom on 11 July 2023, providing pictures to the landlord. She was unclear what action it had taken to deal with the leak. This had led to the subsequent collapse of her bathroom ceiling. An emergency plumber had attended on 15 July 2023. She said that they did not visit her neighbour’s flat, or make her bathroom safe, leaving this unusable. She said that had someone been using the bathroom at the time that the ceiling collapsed it could have caused serious injury. This was extremely distressing to her as her bathroom had been left covered in rubble.
5. there had been several leaks from her neighbour’s property, and she believed that this was not being maintained properly. She had previously experienced leaks into both her bathroom and kitchen over the last 4 years. These continually affected the same areas of her home. She wanted to know what action the landlord was taking to deal with the continued leaks, both in terms of repair and addressing any behaviour by her neighbour which may be contributing to the frequency of the leaks.
6. she wanted the landlord to provide an action plan of how it was going to deal with the continuing ASB caused by her neighbour. This related not only to the leaks into her home, but also referred to issues of noise nuisance and an accumulation rubbish in the garden area.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint on the 17 July 2023. On the same day, its leasehold team wrote to her setting out the actions that it had taken to deal with the reported leak. It gave her details of its buildings insurer and said that it had informed them that it had repaired the leak. It said that a plumber attended her neighbour’s property on 13 July 2023 in response to an out of hours call reporting the leak into her property. The plumber traced the leak to a hot water pipe underneath the bath and repaired this. They attended again the following day but did not find any further leaks. Following the report that the ceiling in her flat had collapsed, a plumber attended on 15 July 2023. They found that water residue from the previous leak had caused the collapse and subsequent damage.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2023. This gave a definition of the resident’s complaint and set out the outcome that she wanted. The response covered 3 specific headings; leaks into her property; a lack of response from the landlord; reported ASB. In this it:
1. noted that there had been various leaks since 2017. It had looked at the leaks she had outlined in her complaint.
2. said that it had first received a report of the leak that had caused her ceiling to collapse on 13 July 2023. It had attended the same day as an emergency. It had traced the leak to a hot water pipe and repaired this. The water residue from the leak had caused the ceiling to come down.
3. said that several of its plumbers had attended her neighbour’s property to deal with blockages to both the sink and waste pipe. Further there had also been leaks from her neighbour’s washing machine. It had found no evidence of a leak from the neighbour’s kitchen when it had attended in July 2023.
4. acknowledged that there had been several leaks and plumbing issues within her neighbour’s property. It said that the leaks had been unconnected. It had attended in a “timely fashion and undertook the necessary work required”. Further, it noted that the neighbour had caused some of the leaks and said that this had been raised with its neighbourhood team to follow up with her.
5. said that it had carried out several inspections of the external stairs and identified that surface water was penetrating into the steps. It noted that this had caused damage to the cloakroom area by her front door. It had now completed works to the steps and would monitor this to ensure that it had resolved the situation.
6. agreed that it had taken a long time to resolve the issue with the stairs. It apologised for this and offered compensation of £100.
7. accepted that she should have received a better service from its housing staff. It said that it should have responded to all her contacts with it. It confirmed that its head of service had spoken with the staff, and it offered an apology for this failure.
8. advised that on the issue of ASB, a community protection warning notice had been issued to her neighbour on 18 July 2023. It had received reports of an incident in March 2023 and had recently collected diary sheets relating to incidents in June 2023 which it would be discussing with her neighbour. It would be providing further diary sheets on which she could record future incidents.
9. enclosed a repair history for her neighbours flat. It had carried out a full property inspection on 3 August 2023, with the plumbing found to be in good working order and no evidence of any ongoing leaks. It had noted defective tiling around the bath. It would be undertaking repair works between 16 and 18 August 2023.
10. said that its insurers had advised that there would be no excess charged for the water ingress from the external stairs. Further it noted that its insurers had made an allowance to enable the resident to stay with family while it carried out the works to the bathroom.
11. extended a further apology and recognised the frustration felt by the resident. It acknowledged that there were learning points that it could take from her complaint both in regard to its communication with her and its monitoring of the property.
The resident was unhappy with landlord’s response and asked for it to escalate her complaint on 30 August 2023 as she wanted a senior manager to investigate her complaint. She said that the landlord’s response was inaccurate as she had reported the leak into her bathroom on 11 July 2023 and she wanted to know why there had been a delay. Further, the information that it had provided for repairs to the upstairs property was not detailed enough and did not include her reports of leaks from the external stairs. She asked the landlord to respond to a series of questions around its handling of the repeated leaks and reported ASB by her neighbour. She highlighted that a similar warning had been issued in 2021 following her previous reports of ASB. In conclusion she set out the outcome she wanted from her complaint. She said:
1. she considered the landlord to be in breach of its repairing obligations.
2. that there had been failures in its complaint handling and a lack of action in response to her reported repairs.
3. that it had failed in its response to her reports of ASB and to uphold the reassurances it had provided to her in 2021.
4. she was looking for £9,050 in compensation. This she calculated as £1000 for each year of major disruptions; £500 for poor complaint handling; £2500 for the poor repairs and maintenance service and £50 to cover the excess incurred through her insurance claim.
Having acknowledged her complaint on 31 August 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 2 October 2023. This acknowledged the delay in its reply, apologising that the author of the letter had been off work ill. In its reply it said that it:
1. believed it had responded appropriately at stage 1. It had acknowledged the failures in the management of repairs and made an offer of £100 compensation.
2. had reviewed the actions taken following her report of a leak into her home on 11 July 2023 and acknowledged its delay in arranging for a plumber to attend. It had taken steps to amend the way its departments communicated going forward and had created a central mailbox for all emailed repair reports. It shared the address with the resident so that she could include this in any future repair requests.
3. found that it had responded to reported repairs appropriately, arranging for officers to attend in line with repairs policy. Following its recent inspection of the property it was considering the frequency for future inspections.
4. had confirmed to her that it had completed the works to the bathroom tiles in her neighbour’s property.
5. would not give her details of the actions of her neighbour that may have contributed to the leaks but confirmed that it had spoken with them.
6. noted that she had first reported a leak from the stairs in 2017. It had instructed repairs at that time, and it had received no further reports until 30 November 2022. It recognised that there had been some delay in undertaking repairs to the stairs. It confirmed that the repairs were now complete. It would be carrying out regular monthly inspections from October 2023 to February 2024.
7. had reviewed the action it had taken regarding her reports of ASB and how it had handled the reports made. It said that it was reassured that these had been taken seriously and acted on proportionately. It acknowledged the strength of feeling from residents and the impact that repeated ASB could have. It explained that a “lack of publicly visible action does not mean that we are not acting”. It encouraged the resident to continue to report issues. It apologised for any failure to communicate and said that it could not always share the steps it was taking.
8. acknowledged that there had been failures in its communication and that it had repeated these failures. It apologised for this and for the frustration caused by its failures to respond to her.
9. had considered her request for compensation. It said that its complaint process was intended to identify where mistakes had been made or processes had not worked as they should have done. Where failures were identified it would use these to improve its services and try to prevent the same service failure happening again. It went on to say “where appropriate and if there was clear evidence of it being the case, if a customers’ financial position has been adversely affected as a direct result of the service failure identified then it is right that the Council should take steps to correct that and restore the customer to the original financial position”. It did not accept that the process was intended to “enable a customer to claim for exorbitant levels of compensation which do not relate to the direct financial loss suffered by the customer”.
10. considered that the offer of £100 it had made sufficiently covered her “out of pocket expenses”. However, it acknowledged the considerable effort made by the resident to report repairs and that it had not always communicated in a timely manner. It made an increased offer of compensation of £250 in total.

Events after the complaints process

The resident brought her complaint to the Service on 15 January 2024 as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that she had experienced the inconvenience of several leaks into her property over a number of years and wanted to know why the above property had been left in a state of disrepair.
Since referring the case to the Service, there have been further leaks into the resident’s property. In October and November 2024, the landlord took the step to decant her neighbour and carry out extensive investigations within the upstairs property. It has confirmed that it will be separating the water supply between the properties to allow each to be individually isolated and will be installing a leak detection system. Further, it had agreed to undertake redecoration work within the resident’s property following the most recent water damage.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s legal and policy framework

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy set out its obligations in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act. It details the landlord’s repair responsibilities and provides the time frame within which it will attend to a repair. It has 3 categories of repairs. Emergency repairs are to be attended within 24 hours to make safe in instances where there is an immediate risk to a person or of serious damage to a property. All other repairs are categorised as routine repairs. The landlord will complete these within 28 working days, with an appointment to be arranged with the resident. Its final category is for major repairs which it will complete within 3 months. This category covers those repairs that it would normally include within its planned maintenance programme but where there is a need for them to be undertaken sooner than the programme date.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It updated this in March 2024 in line with the Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It says that the landlord will acknowledge a complaint at each stage within 5 working days. It will respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out its commitment to reducing ASB through preventative work. It says that its aim is to educate its residents to recognise the impact that their behaviour may have on others. Further it says that while it is focused on prevention and early intervention to address ASB, it will use enforcement measures that are available to it such as community protection warnings and notices. Through these it will address issues of excessive noise, failure to maintain or inappropriate use of gardens and communal areas, fly tipping and rubbish dumping. Its policy says that where it receives reports of ASB it will provide an action plan and give regular updates to the complainant.

Scope of the Investigation

Through her communication with both the landlord and the Service the resident has said that the leaks into her home have persisted over several years, with leaks first identified in 2017, when she bought the flat. There are 2 separate identified causes of water ingress into the resident’s home. Firstly, there was a slow leak into the cloakroom area from the external staircase which leads to the neighbouring flat. Secondly, there have been leaks into both her kitchen and bathroom. The Service acknowledges the resident’s frustration at the recurrence of these leaks. However, we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable timeframe, usually within 12 months of an issue first occurring. Where there had been a significant delay in a resident raising a complaint, it is possible that contemporaneous evidence may not be available given the time that has elapsed. As such this investigation has focused on the complaint raised by the resident in July 2023 and the 12 months prior to this.
In relation to the reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), the role of the Ombudsman is not to assess whether the behaviour reported by a resident amounts to actionable ASB. Instead, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures to investigate and respond to the issues reported, and whether it appropriately communicated its findings and the action it intended to take. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s actions in addressing her reports of ASB by her neighbour in 2021. This was considered by the Service under case reference 2021113158. This report has focused on the same timeframe as that set for the complaint about water leaks.

The resident’s reports of ongoing leaks and water ingress into her property from the flat above.

As outlined the resident has reported several leaks into her home from her neighbour’s property. These have affected both her kitchen and bathroom. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended to reported leaks into the resident’s home in February, April, and July 2022. The resident reported further leaks in February, June, and July 2023. The extent of the leaks and the damage caused led to the resident having to vacate her home on at least 2 occasions while remedial works were undertaken. This was first in 2022 and again in July 2023 following the collapse of her bathroom ceiling.
The landlord has shared its repair records. These show that it has responded to each reported repair and completed required works within the timescale set by its repairs and maintenance policy. However, given the frequency of the leaks the resident’s frustration is understandable as each leak has caused corresponding damage within her home. Given the repeated nature of the leaks the resident believes that there has been a failure by the landlord in actioning the repairs. However, it is not possible to confirm that each reported leak was from the same source within either her neighbour’s kitchen or bathroom to confirm a failure by the landlord to effectively repair a single item.
The leak into her bathroom in July 2023 led to the collapse of her bathroom ceiling. There was a noted delay of 2 days in the landlord ensuring that an emergency plumber attended to the reported leak. As the ceiling collapse was later attributed to residual water from the leak, the extended time to complete the repair undoubtedly contributed to the extent of the damage. This was a significant failure by the landlord. It acknowledged this failure in its complaint response and provided the resident with information as to the steps it had taken to ensure that this did not happen in the future. It noted that its insurers would cover the cost of her staying with family while the works were completed but it did not directly address the distress and inconvenience that this had caused to her. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this and made an offer of an amount of compensation.
As set out above the landlord has, subsequent to the resident’s complaint and in light of further reported leaks, decanted her neighbour and undertaken extensive investigations and works within the flat. Considering the extent of the leaks that the resident has experienced to her home and regularity with which they have occurred, the landlord’s actions here are appropriate. The resident’s frustration at the time taken for the landlord to take this step is acknowledged but it is recognised that it also has to consider the needs and wishes of the other resident in taking such a step.
The resident reported water ingress into her home from the external staircase in November 2022. The landlord inspected this on 5 December 2022. It has not provided any evidence as to the action it took following this inspection. The resident made a further report 23 February 2023. In response, on 10 March 2023, the landlord said that it was awaiting a quote for waterproofing of the stairs. The works were then issued to its contractor on 15 March 2023. Following these works the resident reported that the problem persisted in May 2023 and highlighted the areas at the top of the stairs where she believed the water to be coming from. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if it carried out any further works at this time. The landlord wrote to her neighbour on 21 June 2023 about the disposal of cigarettes on the stairs. It said that it believed that these may be damaging the waterproofing. The resident continued to report the issue and provided photographic evidence of the damage caused within her property. The landlord arranged for extensive works to be carried out to the staircase in November 2023, 12 months after this was raised by the resident. The landlord undertook the necessary remedial works within the resident’s hallway in January 2024 and carried out a follow up inspection in April 2024 to confirm that the area remained dry.
There was a significant delay in the landlord completing a satisfactory repair to the stairs. This was a significant failing by the landlord. Over a period of 2 years the resident experienced repeated leaks into her home from the upstairs property and was faced by a constant, though slow leak, into her home from the external staircase. The landlord did take action to carry out necessary repairs within her neighbour’s property. However, its noted delay in attending to a reported leak in July 2023 inadvertently led to more extensive damage within the resident’s home. This was compounded by its failure to complete an effective repair to the staircase in its first attempt in March 2023. The leaks persisted over a long period and the damage within the resident’s home was extensive. The landlord has acknowledged its failures and in recent months taken steps to provide solutions to the ongoing leaks. That it did not do this at an earlier stage was a failure. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks and water ingress.
Within her complaint escalation request after stage 1, the resident set out the level of compensation that she believed was appropriate in the circumstances of her complaint. In considering a complaint it is the role of the Service to be impartial and to be fair to all parties within the process. The Service has guidance on remedies which has been used here to make an order for compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Communication with the resident about the repair.

The evidence provided by the landlord shows the resident to have widely communicated with it via email. No records have been provided of any telephone conversations with the resident or records of face-to-face meetings. The email communication demonstrates a failure by the landlord to provide regular and timely responses to correspondence from the resident. This left her regularly chasing the landlord for updates on the repairs that it was carrying out. This was understandably frustrating to the resident. Its failure to ensure that her report of a water leak had been effectively passed to its maintenance team and actioned as an emergency repair. This led to an unnecessary 2 day delay in the repair being carried out. This was a failure in the circumstances.
The landlord has acknowledged these failings through its complaint responses and provided the resident with an apology. It set out the actions it had taken to improve its internal communication to avoid future delays in actioning repairs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its repeated failures in its communication with the resident and the frustration that this had caused. It did not however provide any detail as to the steps it would take to ensure that it did not repeat this in the future. This was a service failure by the landlord. The landlord should review its processes for dealing with enquiries from residents. It should consider setting clear response times for replying to resident enquiries and these should be notified to residents to manage expectations.
The landlord provided detailed complaint responses at both stages of its process. These considered the issues raised and addressed each of these. There was however a delay of 10 working days in its response at stage 1 which it did not acknowledge in its reply. The shorter delay at stage 2 was acknowledged within the letter and an explanation given, which was appropriate. This compounded its failure to effectively communicate with the resident and added to its service failure.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the neighbours.

The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2022 to report noise nuisance from her neighbour. She provided a history of the issues she had experienced over the preceding years and expressed the distress that the ongoing noise was causing her. She further said that police had been called to her neighbour’s home in response to the noise and what sounded like a fight. The housing officer visited the resident’s neighbour on 3 February 2022 to discuss the complaint. Further, it told the resident that it would be arranging to clear the items dumped in the garden area and would continue to monitor the situation. There is evidence that the landlord took steps to work with the resident’s neighbour to address the issues reported. These were primarily in regard to noise, shouting and playing loud music in the early hours, together with an accumulation of rubbish in the garden area and blocking the pathway to the resident’s home. There is however no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an action plan or that it met with her to discuss her reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
The landlord provided the resident with diary sheets to record future incidents and sent warning letters to her neighbour. The landlord issued a community protection warning notice on 18 July 2023, requiring the neighbour to remove the rubbish immediately and warning of prosecution. This was an appropriate step in escalating action against the resident’s neighbour.
There is little evidence that the landlord communicated regularly with the resident about the ASB. It collected her diary sheets in June 2023 and asked that the resident continue to complete these to support any future action it may take. It is understood that the continued disturbances caused by her neighbour and the build up of rubbish in the garden area was a frustration to the resident.
While the action taken by the landlord in response to her reports of ASB were appropriate and proportionate, there were failures in its communications, similar to those identified above in regard to the reported repairs. The landlord should have followed the requirement of its ASB policy to meet with the resident to agree an action plan. This would have provided an opportunity to explain the process for investigating and responding to reports of ASB, including how evidence would be gathered, what action may be taken, approximate timescales and how the landlord would communicate with the resident about her concerns. The landlord should also have ensured that updates were provided within a reasonable time, and that all correspondence from the resident was acknowledged. That it did not do so was a failure.
The Ombudsman cannot compel the landlord to take formal action against a tenant where it does not feel that there is sufficient evidence to support legal proceedings for breach of tenancy. However, the landlord should seek to assist residents to gather evidence and provide advice, support, and regular updates. In light of the failings identified, the Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation is appropriate, to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor communication and the lack of clarity as to how her concerns were being dealt with. This has been made in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
A further order has been made for the landlord to ensure that all its staff have received appropriate training on manging ASB in line with its policies and procedures, including the standard and frequency of communication with those residents involved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks and water ingress into her property from the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of communication with the resident about the repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the neighbours.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation. This has been calculated as follows:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to undertake a timely repair which led to the collapse of her bathroom ceiling.
  2. £250 in recognition of the delay in completing a lasting repair to the external staircase.
  3. £100 for the time and trouble taken by the resident in communicating with the landlord where it failed to provide appropriate responses.
  4. £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its poor communications in response to her reports of ASB.
  5. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £250 made at stage 2 of its complaints process. If the landlord has already paid this amount to the resident, it may deduct this from the figure of £600.
2. The landlord should provide the resident with a written apology reflecting on the failings identified within this report. This should be written in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Put in place a training programme for all staff responsible for the management of ASB. This should cover the requirements of its policy and procedure around communication with resident’s, explaining the actions available to it and the timescales it should adhere to. To demonstrate compliance with this order the landlord should provide a copy of its training plan.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should review its processes for dealing with enquiries from residents. It should consider setting clear response times for replying to resident enquiries and these should be notified to residents to manage expectations.