Lambeth Council (202215325)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215325

Lambeth Council

29 November 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a leak into the property and subsequent repairs to the kitchen, bathroom and hallway.
2. The handling of the associated complaint.
3. The record keeping.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority, which commenced on 19 March 2003. The property is a two bedroom flat conversion.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Scope of investigation

It is noted from the evidence that the resident had reported concerns about a leak and subsequent damage to her flat since at least 2017. The resident made a claim for damages on 5 December 2017 as a consequence, which the landlord settled on 7 March 2018. Records indicate the leak was traced and repaired, and remedial works arranged to the affected areas of the property. The resident informed this Service that a brand new kitchen and bathroom were installed in the property in 2019.
According to the evidence, there were no further reports of a leak into the flat until 3 October 2020. The resident informed this Service that she made complaints in December 2020 and January 2021 that were not responded to. Whilst we have not seen copies of the complaints referenced, it is evident that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction about these matters in her emails to the landlord. This Service therefore considers it fair and reasonable to take account of the resident’s historical reports regarding the leak. This report therefore focusses on events that occurred from 3 October 2020, which also became the subject of her formal complaint in September 2022. Any reference to earlier events in this report are for contextual purposes only.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reference to the adverse effect that the landlord’s handling of this matter has had on her health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord obligations

Under Section 11a of the Landlord and Tenant act 1985, landlords have a duty to keep in repair the structure and exterior of its properties, including drains, gutters and external pipes.
According to the information published on its website, it would aim to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe or fix the repair provided that it may damage the building. These repairs include making safe and repairing flooding that is damaging a property. It further states that it will respond to:
1. non-urgent repairs within 7 working days
2. routine repairs within 28 working days
3. Respond to planned repairs within 90 working days.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord agrees to maintain the structure and outside of the property. Where the damage to a tenant’s home is caused by a fault within its responsibility or ability to keep certain items in good repair, and if it is proven that the damage was caused by no fault or neglect of the tenant, it will repair and redecorate all affected areas.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that:
1. To support a thorough investigation, complaints should be made as near to the incident being complained about as possible.
2. It would use the complaints process to put things right at the earliest possible point in the process.
3. Seek to put the customer back in the position they would have been had there not been a fault.
4. It would respond to stage one complaints within 20 working days, acknowledge stage two complaint within 2 working days and respond within 25 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy, last updated in 2016 outlines that:
1. It would make a payment of compensation up to 2,500 (or higher) to remedy an adverse effect on a resident by a serious failure it has caused. Where damage to the resident’s belonging is noted it will recommend that a claim should be made against its insurance.
2. It would pay £20 for each missed appointment.

Summary of events

The resident reported a leak on 3 October 2020 affecting her bathroom. She said her bathroom was getting flooded. The landlord noted that an inspection was arranged for 17 November 2020 to inspect internal damage caused by water ingress.
The resident made an online repair request on 9 October 2020. She reported that nothing had been done since she reported the flooding in her bathroom and son’s room. She said she would be submitting a complaint.
The landlord responded on 11 October 2020 and asked the resident for further information in order to raise a repair. She responded on 13 October 2020 that the bathroom was still leaking and had caused a lot of damage to her bathroom.
The landlord responded on 18 October 2020 and asked if the issue was ongoing and the resident responded that it was. She informed the landlord that she would call to raise a stage one complaint about the matter once its offices were open. She said it had been 18 days since she reported the repair and the leak had caused damage to her bathroom and her son’s bedroom walls.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 October 2020 and advised her that her case had been logged with its repairs team. It said someone would contact her by 4 November 2020 to investigate the source of the leak. The resident expressed concerns about the timeframe stated by the landlord.
The landlord contacted the resident on 28 October 2020 and said that it had escalated the case and arranged for an inspection of the gutters, downpipe and any other external pipe that could be causing the leak for a report. It said it had raised an inspection for attendance within 3 working days and once the scope of works had been determined a follow up appointment would be arranged to complete the repair. It said once the leak had been resolved the resident could follow up on other damage caused.
The landlord’s records indicate that it attended on 14 December 2020 and completed temporary repairs to the bathroom ceiling. It’s operative noted that the ceiling had been made safe with plywood but it needed to be renewed.
The resident contacted the landlord between 16 December 2020 and 27 December 2020. She said:
1. She would be sending another complaint as no repairs had been done.
2. Her sink and toilet seat were damaged when the ceiling collapsed.
3. The leak was affecting her son’s bedroom and some of the personal items in the room had been damaged.
The resident contacted the landlord between 7 January 2021 and 11 January 2021 and reported that the leak was still happening. She asked what was being done to address it and said the ceiling was not safe even though it had been boarded up. The landlord responded on 11 January 2021 and apologised for the inconvenience. It said it would arrange scaffold as she was concerned that rubble continued to fall through the ceiling, and that she had children in the property. It also noted that it sent the resident a claims form to assist with a claim for any damage to her personal belongings.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 25 January 2021 regarding the repairs. She said though a plumber had attended nothing was done. She said rubble continued to fall through the ceiling and her child was scared to go to the toilet.
The landlord responded on 26 January 2021 and apologised for the delay. It said the repairs team had been asked to call her back that day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 January 2021 and advised that an appointment had been scheduled for 2 February 2021. The resident responded that boarding the ceiling with a piece of wood won’t be sufficient. She asked the landlord to elaborate on the repairs from mould and damage.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2021. She reported that:
1. no one showed up for the appointment.
2. the leak was ongoing in 3 rooms and her hallway was flooded and had been the situation since October 2020.
3. her complaint was at stage two but the landlord had not responded.
4. Her daughter was scared to go to the bathroom as she was previously hurt when the ceiling fell.
The resident provided this Service a copy of a completed incident claim form dated 28 March 2021. She noted on the claims form that she was in hospital for surgery and the ongoing issue was causing distress to her household.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 August 2021. She asked for an update about a letter she had sent by recorded delivery regarding missed appointments.
The landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident on 9 August 2021. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to respond to her regarding her missed appointment claims. It rejected the resident’s requests and said the information, dates or reference numbers provided by the resident did not match what was on its records.
The resident responded on 9 August 2021 that she was disappointed with its response. She said she would be taking the matter further with her local ombudsman and her MP.
It is noted from the landlord’s repairs log that the resident reported ongoing leaks and chased up remedial works to the bathroom ceiling and hallway up until September 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2022 to request a compensation form for missed appointments and failed works to her bathroom ceiling.
The landlord informed its contractor on 16 September 2022, that the resident had complained about delays in repairs and missed appointments. It said the resident reported that following a leak, the bathroom ceiling had collapsed and been made safe, but it required remedial works such as plastering and painting to the bathroom and hallway. It noted there was a hole in the bathroom ceiling.
The landlord noted on 20 September 2022 that the kitchen and hallway walls and ceilings were damaged from a previous leak. It said decorative works could commence as the area was dry.
The resident contacted this Service on 14 October 2022 and reported that the leak was ongoing and had affected her electrics. She said the landlord had missed various appointments and failed to carry out inspections. She further said that she complained to the landlord by telephone on 13 September 2022 and was issued a reference number but the landlord’s complaints team were unable to find records of the complaint when she telephoned on 14 October 2022. This Service advised the resident to contact the landlord to clarify whether the issue was being looked into as a formal complaint and a timeframe for the response.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 October 2022. It said it would respond by 11 November 2022.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 19 October 2022. She asked for compensation for days taken off work due to missed appointments, damaged goods and stress caused. She said a surveyor needed to inspect the property to understand the extent of works required. The landlord asked the resident for the dates for the missed appointments and works orders. It also advised her that it had made a request for the service area to arrange a surveyors inspection to address all the issues mentioned in her complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord (undated letter) and said that her concerns were previously raised in complaints made in 2020 and 2021 and that her more recent complaint was made on 13 September 2022. She said:
1. Water and rubble were falling through her bathroom which had a poorly fitted wood over a large hole.
2. She had had mould and mushrooms in her bathroom since 2019.
3. She had buckets of water, towels in her hallway and damaged belongings due to the leak.
4. The kitchen was not currently leaking but there were visible brown dried water marks and mushrooms growing daily.
5. The leak had affected her son’s bedroom on both sides of the walls. This had been an inconvenience to him and the whole family.
6. She had been contacting the landlord for years for compensation for loss and damages.
The landlord raised various repairs to the flat above the resident’s between 1 November 2022 and 7 November 2022.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 7 November 2022. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said:
1. This was in response to her complaint about the delayed and incomplete repairs and missed appointments.
2. Its surveyor attended the property on 1 October 2022 to inspect water damage to the ceilings and walls, hallway, bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. There was a works order already raised and it had contacted the resident and informed her of all the appointment dates.
3. It upheld the resident’s complaint about the delays and that communication on the progress of works could have been better.
4. It does not pay for time off work but it pays for missed appointments and inconvenience caused during repairs. It offered £340 as a gesture of goodwill and said this had been credited to her rent account.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage two on 7 November 2022. She said:
1. She was disappointed with the landlord’s response and failure to reimburse her for damages in spite of all the evidence sent.
2. The surveyor attended her property on 1 November 2022 not 1 October 2022 as stated in the response.
3. The landlord should confirm if the leak had been resolved as it had not clarified this in its stage one.
4. Completing repairs in her flat without resolving the source of the leak was not reassuring.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 November 2022 and said it would respond by 13 December 2022.
The landlord noted that its operatives were unable to gain access on 28 and 29 November 2022 so a plumber returned on 9 December 2022.
The landlord said that its contractors attended on 12 December 2022 and noted that the leak had returned and disturbed recently redecorated areas to the resident’s hallway.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 December 2022 for an update on the stage two complaint. She said:
1. There had been 3 further missed appointments.
2. Water was still occasionally leaking through the hole in her bathroom ceiling so there had not been any changes since her stage one complaint.
The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage two complaint on 14 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 12 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said:
1. It liaised with its contractor and surveyor to obtain the required information about the repairs to the property.
2. The surveyor confirmed that repairs had been raised.
3. When the contractor attended to continue the plastering works on 22 December 2022 it found that a leak was still ongoing from the property above.
4. The contractor attended the flat above twice in November 2022 but it was unable to gain access. When it gained access it found that works were required which was booked in to be completed on 26 January 2023. Once the works had been completed it would continue with the remedial works in the resident’s flat.
5. It was aware from the information held on its records that she had experienced leaks into her property and acknowledged the frustration and upset this would have caused her.
6. It was offering axq £300 as an additional payment and it provided her a link to submit her insurance claim for consideration.
The resident informed this Service on 12 January 2023 that she was not happy with the landlord’s stage two response. She said:
1. The works completed were of a poor standard and the appointment for the sink was not attended.
2. As of that date, the leak was ongoing and her bathroom was flooded.
3. The kitchen repairs completed were already damaged, the hallway had been done to poor standards so the jobs were not completed.
4. The main repair the complaint was about had not been done at all. Two workmen showed up but they left without carrying out any work.

Post complaint actions

The resident reported on 24 January 2023 that the painting done the previous month was all coming off. She said the bathroom hole was still there and was never fixed.
The landlord noted that some minor works were carried out on 7 February 2023 and scheduled further work for 17 March 2023 but this was moved to 23 June 2023 and 24 June 2022. It said more time was needed for the works.
It noted that the resident was not available on 24 June 2023 and it had to reschedule a couple of appointments at her request. The works were subsequently rebooked for 9 August 2023 and 10 August 2023. The repairs described were unrelated to the issues raised in the complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 June 2023 and asked if its contractor attended on 23 June 2023 to carry out decorative works to her kitchen and hallway. The resident responded that no one attended and the repairs were still outstanding.
The resident advised this Service on 12 July 2023 that:
1. Works were still outstanding and water was still leaking through the boarded up ceiling.
2. The ceiling in the bathroom had not been repaired since it collapsed.
3. The issues were causing her a lot of stress and she did not feel the property was a safe place for her family.
The landlord advised this Service that the works in the flat above the resident’s were completed on 22 August 2022 and a senior surveyor would be undertaking a post inspection of both flats and to assess claims for losses or damage to personal items.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 August 2023 and reported that she had not heard back in over 10 days. She said pictures of the state of her home were attached showing water damage to four rooms in the property.
The landlord informed this Service on 30 August 2023 that:
1. It had reviewed its offer of compensation in view of the prolonged delay the customer had experienced and offered an additional amount of £400.00 in respect of the delays.
2. The leak had been resolved and while it noted that the resident had rearranged some appointments, the delay was unacceptable and fell below the level of service it would expect.
3. The resident had been advised to submit an insurance claim in relation to her concerns about damages. It said it was willing to help her with this if she was experiencing difficulty or had not yet begun the process.
4. It was reviewing its processes to ensure that residents are kept better informed where repairs have proved complicated which in turn had resulted in delays.
In an internal email dated 21 September 2023, the landlord noted that the leak into the resident’s property was coming from a water closet (WC) in the above flat that had had numerous repairs. It said the works to the WC were undertaken on 10 August 2023 and no further leaks had been reported since.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 September 2023. She said despite visits from the landlord, nothing had happened and the repairs were still not done. The landlord apologised for the delay she continued to experience with the repairs. It promised to speak to the contractors for an update.
On 20 October 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had been in touch with its insurance team and had sent evidence to them.
The resident confirmed to this Service on 16 November 2023 that the leak had been resolved and remedial works completed to her satisfaction in October 2023. She said the landlord had:
1. fitted a new bathroom ceiling
2. painted the bathroom
3. decorated the kitchen ceiling
4. Redecorated the hallway and her son’s bedroom.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a leak into the property and subsequent repairs to the kitchen, bathroom and hallway.

We have seen from the evidence that the resident first notified the landlord of a leak affecting her bathroom in October 2020. It is noted that she consistently chased it for urgent repairs until December 2020 when she reported that the bathroom ceiling had fallen in. There is no evidence of any actions taken or clear communication with the resident in regards to what it was doing to investigate the leak and to determine how the resident was being affected. This was unreasonable and not in adherence with its policies. The resident was left unsupported for over three months, which exceeded its response times for routine repairs, until the ceiling collapsed. It is noted that the landlord promptly attended the next day to carry out temporary repairs. However, it is clear that the lack of response or intervention prior to the time the ceiling fell in would have caused the resident distress, inconvenience and uncertainty.
The resident continued to raise concerns about the leak and chase up permanent repairs to the ceiling from January 2021 until September 2021. This was a further period of 9 months with little or no communication about works being done, if any, to trace and contain the leak.. We have noted that the resident advised the landlord of the inconvenience the delays were having on her family in various communications including her insurance claim which she said she submitted in March 2021. Whilst the landlord responded in August 2021 that it was unable to uphold her complaint about missed appointments, it failed to address the real cause of the resident’s complaint or provide any assurance on measures being taken to address the issue. This was unreasonable and would have caused the resident further distress. This is noted from her email dated 9 August 2021 but there is no evidence of any attempts being made on the landlord’s part to resolve the matter.
According to the landlord’s repairs log, the resident did not report any concerns about a leak from October 2021 until August 2022, though she reported other unrelated repairs. This said, we have not seen evidence confirming dates of visits to ascertain if the leak was still occurring, findings from inspections, and works completed to resolve the repairs during this period. Due to this missing information, this Service cannot conclude that repairs were undertaken during this period to remedy any damage in the resident’s flat as set out in its policy and tenancy obligations. Furthermore, it is noted from the landlord’s email, to its contractor on 16 September 2022, that it did not dispute the resident’s reports that the repair was still outstanding at that time. She later reported that water and rubble were falling through the hole in the bathroom. This suggests that the resident had been left with unresolved repairs for over 18 months (January 2021 till September 2022). This is not appropriate as it indicates that the landlord did not proactively manage the resident’s repairs in effectively communicating with her and appeared to only act on feedback from her. The landlord failed to actively listen to the resident or take into account the detriment being caused to the resident and her household. It was on notice that there was a child in the household and of the ongoing impact of the leak and unresolved repairs . It seemed to have lost sight of the works which shows evidence of poor record keeping.
Whilst the evidence suggests that some repairs were being carried out in the resident’s property, following her contact in September 2022, the extent of such works are not clear as they have not been included in the repairs log. It also remained unclear if attempts had been made to rectify the leak in the above flat. The resident pointed this out in her email to the landlord on 7 November 2022. This shows that its communication with the resident was poorly managed and in doing so failed to manage her expectations. This would have further contributed to a prolonged impact on the resident and her family and damaging the landlord-tenant relationship.
In its response to the resident on 12 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged that water was still leaking into the resident’s flat. It said works had been scheduled in for January 2023 to the above flat and that remedial works would commence in her flat following completion. However, there were further significant delays as the leak was not resolved until August 2023 and the resident’s repairs in October 2023. While the landlord explained that there were mitigating factors that caused the delay such as problems in accessing the above flat and covid restrictions, this does not adequately explain a delay of almost 23 months. It is noted from its response that some plastering works were completed around December 2022, but the resident felt this was pointless as there was no assurance that the leak had been resolved. It is also noted that the ceiling repairs, which the resident referred to as the main repair was not completed until October 2023. The resident was consequently left with a partially repaired ceiling for a prolonged period, which posed a potential health and safety risk to her household. It is noted from the resident’s correspondence that this experience caused her distress, frustration and loss of trust in her landlord.
The landlord apologised to the resident for her experience and offered £740 at the end of its complaints process and an additional £400, in August 2023 after its complaints process had been exhausted, bringing the total compensation to £1040. The landlord’s actions at this later stage in the management of this case were appropriate. It accepted that it had failed to meet its expected standards in how it responded to the resident’s repairs. Whilst the award would have been in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, we have seen that the repairs, remedies and learning from the case occurred months after its final response. The landlord’s compensation policy also allows for financial awards for loss of the use of a room, or rooms, as a result of substantial disrepair rendering them unusable. Its policy further notes that it will offer £20 for each missed appointment, but it has not clearly itemised how many appointments were missed and if this was included in its compensation. It has also not evidenced that its offer took account of any detriment to the resident due to loss of enjoyment of her home for an extended length of time.
Also, there is evidence of inadequate and poor communication and handling of repairs, failure to manage expectations and long periods of unexplained delays throughout the life of the case. The resident informed this Service that had the landlord taken this proactive approach earlier in the case, she would not have experienced this level of distress. In light of this, a finding of severe maladministration is found in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a leak into the property and subsequent repairs to the kitchen, bathroom and hallway.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management published May 2023 (after the complaint) emphasises the importance of record keeping and more importantly its maintenance. Whilst the landlord provided a copy of its repairs log for the resident, it did not contain a comprehensive record of inspections, findings and recommendations or full specification of works required in the resident’s flat. An example is its reference to an inspection arranged for 17 November 2020, to inspect internal damage caused by water ingress. It is unclear if this appointment was attended and any outcomes from the inspection are unknown.
In response to our request for information relating to its handling of the repairs to the kitchen, hallway and bathroom, it failed to provide the following:
1. copies of the resident’s repair requests
2. internal correspondence or notices sent to the resident concerning its findings.
3. Records of missed or cancelled appointments.
The landlord was also asked to provide information relating to the resident’s reports and its investigation of damage to personal property, before and during the course of our investigation, but it only provided historical information. In the absence of the above information we contacted the resident and she was able to provide evidence of emails sent to the landlord between October 2020 and August 2021 which were not provided by the landlord. This also included a claims form dated 28 March 2021. However, it is not clear if the landlord received it.
The lack of or partial information brings to light concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and it indicates that her reports were not taken seriously which subsequently contributed to the delays in completing the repairs. This Service therefore finds evidence of maladministration in its record keeping.

The handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as any expression of dissatisfaction, not resolved immediately to the customer’s satisfaction, about the level, quality or nature of a service which the customer feels should have been provided. This said, it is evident that the resident was displeased about the delay in resolving the leak and repairs to her flat which she expressed in her emails between 9 October 2020 and 9 August 2021. From the evidence seen, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns. It should have registered the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint and responded to it accordingly. Whilst its policy states that it would use its complaints process to put things right at the earliest point in the process, it did not put this in practice. Failing to do this meant it missed an opportunity resolve the issue before it became worse. This would have caused the resident distress, frustration, time and trouble.
The landlord noted that the resident’s stage one complaint was made by telephone on 13 September 2022, but it took over a month to acknowledge it and 39 working days to respond. It should have acknowledged the complaint within two working days and responded within 20 working days in adherence with its policy. Although it upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused, there was no clarity in terms of its investigation of the leak, works being done or completed. It also failed to address the resident’s point that compensation for damaged personal goods had not been considered. This led to frustration and left the resident with no clear plan of the next steps and timescales for works to be undertaken. This is noted from her stage two complaint, sent on 7 November 2022.
Whilst the landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint, the response was issued 42 working days after it was received. This was 17 working days outside of its 25 working days stipulated in its complaints policy. It acknowledged the delay and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. However, the response was not adequate. It failed to provide a background of the case, especially since the resident stated that the issue had been ongoing since 2019 and an explanation for the delays. It would also have been appropriate to provide a detailed summary of works completed and any outstanding works along with the timeframe for completion.
There is no evidence of learning from its stage one complaint, which left the resident in a complaints process with no clear outcomes agreed. It is noted that it offered advice on how the resident could submit a claim for damages, but it missed another opportunity to fully investigate her complaint that she had been requesting it for years. It failed to use its complaints process to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. Whilst the landlord offered compensation for the delay and inconvenience in repairs, it did not consider any detriment to the resident for the delay in responding to the complaint. In light of this, there is evidence of maladministration in its handling of the complaint

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a leak into the property and subsequent repairs to the kitchen, bathroom and hallway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to resolve a persistent leak into the resident’s property within the timeframes published for routine repairs on its website. There were also significant delays in its handling of the subsequent damage to the resident’s flat which it took over 20 months to resolve.
It did not communicate effectively with the resident and explain the reasons for this prolonged delay. Whilst it acknowledged these failings at the end of its complaints process, it took an extended period of time to complete the repairs and demonstrate any learning.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaints at stage one and two. The responses were not adequate as they did not fully address the issues raised by the resident and it did not learn from this throughout the life of the complaints. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the stage two complaint it did not offer compensation for the inconvenience.
The landlord did not provide sufficient information to this Service despite our efforts to obtain evidence. This impacted our investigation, and it has not enabled this Service to obtain a full history of the resident’s reports and its handling of the bathroom repairs or other repairs reported by the resident.

Orders

The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £1800 broken down as:
  1. £1000 for loss of enjoyment of her home due to delays in resolving the repairs.
  2. £500 for the time and trouble to the resident for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
  3. £300 for the failings identified in its record keeping.
2. Pay the resident the £1040 previously offered, if it has not already been paid to her or credited to her rent account as noted in its responses.
3. Ensure that compensation awarded in this report is paid directly to the resident.
4. Consider the resident’s request for compensation for missed appointments and ensure that she is reimbursed for any that are identified as missed.
5. Support the resident to facilitate an insurance claim through its insurance provider for damages.
6. Assess itself against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) if it has not already done so.
7. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.