Ipswich Borough Council (202309538)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309538

Ipswich Borough Council

28 February 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 resident’s report of a leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident and her husband were secure tenants of the landlord. Their joint tenancy began in 2016. It is unclear when it ended. The property is a 3-bedroom house at the end of a terrace. The landlord is a local authority. The resident’s husband works in construction.
On 17 March 2023 the resident reported a major leak at the property. Within hours, the landlord’s operatives made the situation safe. Its contractor checked the property’s heating system on the next working day. The landlord did not take any further action at this point. The resident began to resolve matters through her insurer.
The resident complained to the landlord around 3 May 2023. She was unhappy with its communication and overall level of support. The landlord responded on 30 May 2023. It said it needed to complete an inspection but it had been unable to contact the resident. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 June 2023. She referenced a failed repair appointment and a general lack of care from the landlord.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 30 June 2023. It said it felt its level of communication had been acceptable and some issues were due to the resident’s actions. It did not uphold the complaint. Subsequently, the resident escalated the complaint again after the landlord did not deliver some materials as expected. The landlord issued a stage 3 response on 11 August 2023. It accepted there had been some confusion around the roles of the landlord and the insurer. It partly upheld the complaint but it did not award any compensation.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in February 2025. She said she was no longer a tenant of the landlord. She felt the landlord had left her to resolve the repair issues in the property. She referenced a lack of support and oversight. She wanted compensation and felt the landlord should learn from her case. She also said she had incurred a number of expenses in the period after the leak.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak

On 17 March 2023 the resident reported a major leak. The leak caused significant flooding in the property. The landlord’s repair notes said a pipe had disconnected from the boiler. The records show its plumbing and electrical operatives attended the property within hours to make the situation safe. The evidence also suggests the landlord supplied the resident a dehumidifier on the same day. This was swift and effective action by the landlord.
The parties agree the landlord’s plumbing contractor attended the property again on 20 March 2023 (the visits took place either side of a weekend). They disagree about the scope of the contractor’s works. The resident has said the boiler was replaced. Later, the contractor told the landlord it had tested the existing boiler and confirmed it was working correctly. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange another visit from its contractor. However, there is no indication it (or its agents) took any further action at this point. Subsequent events point to a coordination failure by the landlord.
The resident called the landlord on 24 March 2023. The evidence suggests she had spoken to her insurer beforehand. She said it would take several months to repair the damage. She also said her family would move out to facilitate the works. She told the landlord that the property would be empty for a time. The call prompted the landlord to make internal enquiries. Related correspondence shows the staff that liaised with the resident were not aware that a major leak involving significant damage had occurred. This points to a record keeping or information sharing issue and is concerning.
Later that day, the landlord shared some different call notes during its internal correspondence. They summarised another call between the parties. The notes show the resident told the landlord an insurance company had said the property was not habitable. She said the kitchen and bathroom needed to be replaced along with some floors. The landlord replied it was usually responsible for works of this type. It asked which member of its staff was aware of the situation. The resident did not recall who she spoke to. She said she was happy for the insurer to progress matters. Based on the call notes, the landlord arranged an inspection. This was an appropriate step given the extensive damage reported.
On 30 March 2023 the landlord visited the property. This was 9 working days after the leak. It relayed its findings during internal correspondence several days later. It said the property was in “fair condition”. It acknowledged it had not seen the resident’s home when it was waterlogged. It also said there was a strong smell of damp in the property and the kitchen ceiling was stained. It noted the ceiling seemed to be solid. The attending operative felt the resident was “reluctant for any inspections upstairs”. They said the resident had been running the dehumidifier constantly. Subsequent events show the landlord should have been more proactive at this point. For example, the resident may have felt more supported if it had agreed to contact her at regular intervals. This approach would have allowed the landlord to monitor the situation closely.
The parties exchanged emails around the time of the visit. The landlord supplied some documents to the resident. They included a copy of her tenancy agreement. On 31 March 2023 the resident told the landlord, “They won’t move us until the test has been done and they have the results”. This suggests she was expecting her insurer to arrange temporary accommodation for the family. Overall, the evidence shows the insurer was progressing the repairs and the landlord was supporting the resident with any associated requests. It was reasonable for it to supply any required documents for the insurer.
Between 20 and 21 April 2023 there was a further email exchange. The resident asked the landlord for an update about temporary accommodation. She said the property’s floors were due to be removed that day. The landlord asked for more information. It said it had “spoken to management and hotel accommodation could be an option”. However, the resident would not be able to take her dog. The resident replied the drying was expected to take several weeks. The exchange suggests the insurer eventually declined to provide temporary accommodation for the family. It was reasonable for the landlord to explore whether it could provide temporary accommodation for them instead.
The resident subsequently reported that the insurer was going to remove its drying equipment. She said it had told her the landlord was responsible for drying the property. The landlord asked for information about the equipment. It did not provide copies of the subsequent emails in the exchange. As a result, it is unclear what happened next. It is noted the insurer seemed to change its position towards temporary accommodation and the drying equipment. Overall, the evidence shows there was some confusion around the parties’ roles and responsibilities. It also shows the resident was negatively impacted by this confusion.
The resident complained to the landlord around 3 May 2023. She was unhappy with its communication and the level of support it had provided. She said it had not returned her calls and it did not know what was going on. She also said it had not replaced the drying equipment and there had been no visits from its repairs team. She said the landlord had admitted it was at fault for the leak. She felt it did not want to help her return the property to its previous condition. Her comments show she was frustrated by the landlord’s passive approach.
On 13 May 2023 the resident chased the landlord. She said she had tried to contact 2 of its representatives without success. She also said she would withhold her rent until she had spoken to someone. She confirmed she was going on holiday for 2 weeks. Two days later, the landlord sought internal guidance about her email. It said her contents insurer had declined to complete some repairs as it felt they were the landlord’s responsibility. It also said the family had made some alterations to the property and the alterations were the resident’s responsibility. Other key points from the landlord’s internal query were:
1. The landlord felt any damage to the resident’s alterations should be addressed by her insurer.
2. It had asked her insurer to deal directly with its insurance team.
3. The insurer had completed works to the property’s bathroom. The landlord felt the works were its responsibility.
4. The resident wanted the landlord to arrange temporary accommodation for 6 weeks. Her insurer had declined to do this.
5. The insurer had removed its drying equipment. The landlord had previously supplied a dehumidifier to the resident.
Given the confusion around the parties’ roles and responsibilities (between the insurer and the landlord), it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the insurer to its own insurance team. It is reasonable to conclude this improved communication between the parties. Based on the period between 24 March and 13 May 2023, the landlord did this around 7 weeks after the insurer raised a claim. This was an unreasonable timescale in the circumstances
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 30 May 2023. It was issued by one of its repairs managers. The manager said they needed to inspect the property to confirm if repairs were needed. They also said they had been unable to contact the resident. The landlord asked her to arrange a convenient appointment. It said it was unable to progress the complaint further in the meantime. It was reasonable for the repairs manager to request an inspection. However, the landlord made the request around 11 weeks after the leak. It had also visited in late March 2023. In the circumstances, the lengthy delay and repeat visit are evidence of coordination failures on its part. It is reasonable to conclude a repeat inspection was avoidable and inconvenient for the resident.
The landlord’s records show its manager visited the property on 5 and 9 June 2023. The landlord did not provide a first-hand account of the visits. However, the visits suggest it had started to monitor the situation closely and was taking a more proactive role. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s revised approach was more consistent with its repairing obligations under the tenancy agreement.
On 16 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said its operatives had failed to attend a prearranged repair appointment. She also said she had got up early on her day off to prepare for the visit. She wanted compensation from the landlord. She said she was “extremely angry” with its “lack of care”. She also said she had rearranged a sofa delivery due to the failed visit. She felt the landlord had only offered to complete a few repairs. She was disappointed it seemed to be having difficulty completing them. Her frustration was understandable given the landlord’s initial coordination failure.
Repair records show the landlord attended the property later that day. The notes show it renewed a section of the living room floor. The landlord told us it supplied another dehumidifier during the visit. There is a lack of first-hand evidence to support this assertion. This points to problems with the landlord’s record keeping. From the information both parties provided, there is no evidence to show the landlord failed to attend an appointment on this date. Rather, there is evidence its operatives arrived several hours later than the resident expected. It is unclear if the confusion arose from the landlord’s prior communications. The importance of clear and accurate communication regarding appointments, particularly in the event of changes to timings, is highlighted.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident following another visit to the property. It apologised for a delay in resolving some (unspecified) issues. It also said it would review the parties’ previous communications around temporary accommodation. However, it was the landlord’s policy not to provide temporary accommodation unless a property was deemed to be uninhabitable. The landlord said an equivalent finding had not been made in the resident’s case. Its emails included a proposed schedule of works. Other key points were:
1. The landlord wanted to complete repairs in the lounge, hallway and kitchen. The works included installing screed flooring, stain blocking, and plaster repairs.
2. The resident wanted to replace various items. They included skirting, doors, a kitchen, and some flooring. Her insurance would cover many of these items.
3. The landlord wanted to begin its works on 7 July 2023. It needed the resident to confirm this date and provide dates for the follow–up works.
The landlord supplied a copy of its decant (temporary moves) policy. The document was effective from June 2023. It is labelled “version number 1”. The evidence suggests the landlord did not have a previous decant policy. Since we were unable to find a more relevant document online or in our records, we used the landlord’s document in our investigation. It shows the landlord will provide temporary accommodation if a property becomes uninhabitable due to an immediate health and safety risk. It will also provide it where major works mean it is not reasonable or possible for a resident to remain in their home.
It is reasonable to conclude that similar considerations governed the landlord’s decisions about temporary moves before the policy took effect. In this case, it is noted the resident’s insurer felt a temporary move was needed. However, there is no evidence to show the resident met the landlord’s criteria for a temporary move. It had inspected the property on at least 2 occasions by this point. There is no indication it had any concerns about the resident’s welfare or the property’s usability during the repairs. Overall, there is no evidence to show the landlord’s decision about a temporary move was unreasonable or unfair.
The landlord’s email suggests it had discussed the parties’ repairing obligations with the resident during its visit. It also shows the landlord had created an action plan in collaboration with her. These were reasonable steps. However, the landlord should have completed these actions promptly after the leak occurred.
On 30 June 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It acknowledged the experience of dealing with the leak had been difficult for the resident. It also acknowledged some confusion in relation to the insurance company. However, it did not uphold her complaint. The landlord felt its communication had met an “acceptable level”. It also said it had returned the resident’s calls. However, “conflicting information had been received in relation to vacating of the property and the exact nature of what the insurance company was responsible for.” (this wording indicates the landlord felt the resident was responsible for this). The landlord’s other key points were:
1. After her initial report, the landlord did not receive any contact from the resident until she reported that she would move out.
2. The resident’s second call prompted the landlord to complete an inspection.
3. The resident had given the impression her insurer was dealing with all issues and the landlord did not need to be involved.
4. It was the insurer that felt a temporary move was necessary. It was reasonable to expect the insurer to cover the relevant costs.
5. Following her complaint on 30 May 2023, the landlord was unable to contact the resident for some time.
6. In late June 2023 the resident raised quality concerns about the landlord’s flooring works (from 16 June 2023). She also felt other works had not been completed.
7. The parties subsequently agreed a list of repairs. The resident had asked for the materials so her husband could complete them himself.
8. The landlord was waiting for confirmation from the resident. This would allow it to schedule the repairs or the delivery of materials.
9. The landlord had supplied a dehumidifier. The resident had advised it was not in use, so the landlord would collect it.
The evidence points to problems with the landlord’s response. Specifically, it put the onus on the resident to progress matters at some key points in the repair timeline. Effectively, it felt she should have contacted the landlord again after its visits on 17 and 20 March 2023 (perhaps to arrange an inspection). However, there is no evidence to show the resident was obliged to do this. From her perspective, she had notified the landlord about the leak and its operatives had observed significant damage to the property. As a result, the landlord’s expectations around further contact were unreasonable. Its attending operatives could have reasonably set the resident’s expectations. They should also have flagged the situation to the landlord so it could take further action.
The landlord also put the onus on the resident to provide accurate information about her insurer’s actions. However, it should have assumed a more proactive role at an early stage in line with its repair obligations. Arguably, the landlord’s lack of action allowed the resident’s insurance company to take the lead. As a result, the landlord’s approach contributed to any confusion that subsequently arose between the parties. Its expectation for the resident to provide detailed and accurate information about her insurer’s actions was unreasonable.
The evidence points to a further problem around temporary accommodation. The landlord’s correspondence to the resident in April 2023 shows it was open to arranging temporary accommodation for her. The landlord subsequently changed its position. The evidence shows it was entitled to do this. However, the landlord should have reasonably acknowledged that its communications may have raised the resident’s expectations. This would have allowed it to address any related frustration or disappointment on the resident’s part. The evidence suggests a temporary move was important to her. For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, the landlord’s response was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances.
On 4 July 2023 the landlord chased the resident for a decision in relation to the repairs/materials. Its email included a list of suggested materials. The landlord asked if there was anything missing from the list. The resident replied the next day. She asked the landlord to deliver its list of items. She also said the bathroom floor should be replaced because it was damp. The landlord said the materials were ready for delivery and a member of staff would contact the resident to arrange a convenient timeslot. It also said the staff member would arrange the requested works to the bathroom floor. The landlord adopted a reasonable and proactive approach to progress matters for both parties at this point. However, it could have reasonably supplied some contact details for the allocated staff member.
Around 14 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint again. She said it had not contacted her about the delivery or flooring repairs as promised. She attributed the situation to its “usual lack of communication and consideration”. She said her husband had taken time off work to prepare the property’s hallway and lounge for a prescheduled carpet fitting. She also said the landlord expected her family to “sit around and wait” (for it to progress matters). The resident’s frustration was understandable in the circumstances.
The parties exchanged emails on 21 July 2023. The resident said her husband wanted to install the flooring that day and he had taken time off work. She also said she had kept receipts for some materials she had bought. The landlord said it could deliver the materials that morning. It asked if the resident could return the items she purchased. The resident did not reply until late in the day. At this point, she asked what had happened to the landlord’s delivery. The landlord replied it had been waiting for her to respond to its email. The resident was unhappy with its communication. The landlord said “communication was a two way issue”. Given the contents of the resident’s initial email, it could have reasonably chased her about the delivery. There was an unreasonable lack of communication from the landlord, and its subsequent communication was insensitively worded. The resident’s plans were impacted as a result.
On 11 August 2023 the landlord issued a stage 3 response. It apologised for the resident’s experience. It said the service she received did not meet its desired standard. It partly upheld the complaint. It felt it should have explained its role in relation to the insurer more clearly. It also felt it should have communicated with the resident sooner about the delivery of materials. The landlord did not award any compensation. Its new points at stage 3 were:
1. The landlord’s maintenance team felt the flood was caused by items the resident had installed. As a result, the landlord expected her insurer to resolve the matter.
2. The landlord had learned from the resident’s case. When insurers were involved, it would clarify the parties’ roles and responsibilities at an early stage. To avoid confusion, it would communicate these to each party.
3. In future, the landlord would provide details of any repairs it had agreed to complete. This would avoid any confusion about the scope of its works. It would also update the impacted residents regularly.
The landlord took some positive steps in its response. It recognised the wider implications of the resident’s case and took reasonable steps to learn from it. This was appropriate and consistent with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of “learning from outcomes”. It also acknowledged there were communication issues around deliveries. It rightly apologised for them. However, the landlord appeared to blame the resident for the leak and it did not adequately explain its position. For example, it did not mention a specific alteration the resident had made. This approach was unfair and may have added to the resident’s distress. It is noted there is a lack of evidence to support the landlord’s approach.
The landlord’s relevant compensation policy (effective July 2022) shows it can make discretionary payments to address various issues. They include delays and failure to provide a service. Awards are calculated based on the landlord’s level of responsibility and the corresponding impact to the resident (low, medium or high). High impact is defined as a serious failure due to the severity of the incident, a persistent failure over a prolonged period, or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve an issue. Several aspects of the landlord’s definition apply in this case. Given its various delays and failures, it should have compensated the resident in line with its policy. An apology alone was inadequate.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in February 2025. She said she felt badly treated by the landlord. She felt she was left to progress the repairs herself. She referenced a lack of oversight and support from the landlord. She said she was out–of–pocket because she had spent some of her insurance money on materials. She also said her energy costs had increased due to the drying equipment. She said the landlord had not offered to cover these costs. She wanted some compensation and felt the landlord should learn from her case.
There is no indication the resident raised concerns about her energy costs during her complaint to the landlord. It is noted the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to make payments for “quantifiable loss” on receipt of evidence. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation to resolve the matter fairly for both parties.
In summary, the landlord failed to follow up with the resident after its initial repair visits. This is concerning given the nature of her report. Its contractor had observed significant damage to the property. The evidence points to coordination failures on the landlord’s part. Due to its lack of action, the resident began to address matters herself. Her insurer took the lead and the landlord assumed a passive role. The situation ultimately caused confusion for all parties. The landlord was responsible for delays and its handling compounded the resident’s frustration. It eventually accepted responsibility for some failures. However, its apology was not sufficient to put things right for the resident.
Given its series of failures and their impact on the resident, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman has ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s relevant compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies. As mentioned, the landlord’s delays and failures were consistent with the high impact category in its relevant compensation policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord around 3 May 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 30 May 2023. This was around 17 working days later. The landlord’s relevant complaints procedure (effective March 2021) shows it should acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It is unclear if the landlord issued the resident an acknowledgement. It should then issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The evidence points to a short delay in this case. Given its duration, an apology may have been sufficient to address this. However, the landlord did not acknowledge a complaint handling delay in its stage 1 response. As a result, it did not attempt to put things right for the resident. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
In its response, the landlord said it had been unable to contact the resident. It also said it was unable to progress her complaint so it would close it. It asked the resident to get in touch so it could arrange an inspection. Although the parties subsequently established contact, there is no indication the landlord attempted to issue a full stage 1 response. Its informal approach was not consistent with the applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) as published in March 2022. Section 5.8 says landlords must issue a written response at the end of stage 1. It must also include key information such as the landlord’s decision on the complaint and its rationale.
The above shows the landlord’s stage 1 complaint handling was unreasonable and contrary to the Code. It was also unfair to the resident.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 16 June 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 30 June 2023. This was 10 working days later. This timescale was consistent with the landlord’s relevant complaints procedure (it has up to 23 working days to respond). However, there were similar issues with the landlord’s response. It did not include any referral rights to the Ombudsman. Section 5.16 of the Code shows referral rights were compulsory at this stage. The landlord’s response was inappropriate. However, our records show the resident contacted us before the response was issued, and so she was not impacted by this failure.
The resident escalated her complaint again around 14 July 2023. The landlord did not provide a copy of her escalation request. It issued a stage 3 response on 11 August 2023. This was around 20 working days later. This timescale was consistent with the landlord’s complaints procedure, which allowed up to 23 working days for a response at this stage. The landlord operated a 3–stage complaints procedure at this point. This was permitted under the applicable version of the Code. The landlord’s website shows it later removed the third complaint stage. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s current expectations.
In summary, the evidence points to a short delay at stage 1. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay or attempt to put things right for the resident. This was unreasonable. Subsequently, it did not issue a full stage 1 response. Its informal approach was contrary to the Code and unfair. Its failure to reach a decision at this stage may have caused some confusion for the resident. The landlord could have reasonably addressed this failure in one of its subsequent responses. In mitigation, there is no indication its failures had a significant impact on the resident. We therefore find there was service failure in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant member of its executive team to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 4 weeks.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £700 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her report of a leak.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It should stress the importance of following up and monitoring when it comes to cases that involve significant damage to a property. It must share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident and request details of her increased energy costs. These costs relate to the drying equipment following the leak. The landlord should confirm it will consider making a quantifiable loss payment under its relevant compensation policy on receipt of evidence from the resident. Its letter should include details for the landlord’s relevant member of staff. This will ensure the resident can contact the correct person if required.