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

Lambeth Council (202316466)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316466

Lambeth Council

8 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks into her property from an upstairs flat and the subsequent damage caused.
  2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident has stated that she experienced a water leak on 6 June 2023 which she reported to the landlord. She states that the landlord sent a plumber on 14 June 2023 who was unable to find the source of the leak but believed it to be wastewater. A second plumber attended on 19 June 2023 but was unable to find the leak.
  3. The resident complained about the leak and subsequent damage to her property on 6 July 2023, raising concerns that plumbers had not been able to find the leak, and had told her it was wastewater. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. However, the response did not have a date, so the date it was sent is unknown. The landlord authorised a CCTV survey to find the source of the leak. It confirmed that the resident could claim on her own content’s insurance for damage but said she could submit a liability claim if she deemed it necessary. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint for any distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. After the resident experienced a continued leak following the landlord’s initial response to her complaint, she requested that her complaint be escalated on 4 August 2023. The landlord responded to the escalated complaint on 11 September 2023, apologising for the resident’s dissatisfaction and the delay in addressing the issue. It said that a CCTV survey of the stack pipe was completed on 11 August 2023, and follow-up repairs were scheduled for 22 August 2023. The landlord confirmed that any damage caused by disrepair to its properties and pipework contained within must go through the resident’s insurance.
  5. The resident remained unhappy and brought her complaint to our Service. She confirmed that she had claimed for the damage caused by the leak through her leaseholder policy and paid £500 excess to do so. The policy covers all properties in the building and is arranged by the landlord but paid for by the leaseholders through their service charge.
  6. The resident informed us that the leak was repaired in September 2023, and the repairs to her property were completed by the insurance company in May 2024.
  7. The resident would like our Service to assess how the landlord handled her reports of the leak. She is dissatisfied with the time it took to identify the source of the leak, having to pay £500 excess for a leak that was not her fault, and the lack of consideration for offering compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of the resolution to the complaint, the resident requested the landlord reimbursed the excess charge of £500 that she paid to make an insurance claim. She felt that it was unfair that she had to pay when the leak was traced from a tenanted property. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments and frustrations, however, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to make decisions regarding an insurance claim. Such decisions are best made by either an insurer or by a court. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has evaluated how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and whether its response was appropriate in the circumstances.

Assessment

  1. As part of this investigation the Ombudsman requested records from the landlord relating to the leak, such as repair records and survey reports. The landlord has not provided the Service with detailed records, making it more difficult to establish what happened. In contrast, the resident has provided a detailed chronology of events. In lieu of information from the landlord, we have relied on the resident’s own account of events to inform this investigation, which we have compared to the landlord’s account as far as possible.
  2. The resident’s lease states that the landlord is responsible for repairing soil pipes, provided that the resident has followed the lease obligations. Leaseholders are responsible for repairing any leaking pipes and drains within their own properties. The landlord is ultimately responsible for investigating the source of leaks to determine if any repairs are its responsibility.
  3. The resident states that she reported a leak on 6 June 2023. However, it was not until 14 June 2023 that a plumber attended, who was unable to identify the source of the leak. The records provided by the landlord do not confirm the priority given to this repair. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs that may damage the building or pose a security risk to a home, including flooding that damages property, should be attended to within 2 hours, and that leaks are considered emergency repairs and should be responded to within 24 hours. The landlord attended 8 days later, which was not in line with either of these timescales and unreasonably delayed tracing the leak that was damaging the resident’s property.
  4. On 19 June 2023 the resident states that she contacted the landlord again about the unresolved leak, stressing the urgency of the situation due to her young child being in the property. She has said that despite the landlord arranging for plumbers to attend on two occasions, the diagnosis process was slow. This led to the resident pursuing a formal complaint in July 2023.
  5. On 2 August 2023 the records show that a repair was logged as an emergency. It is unknown whether the resident or a contractor reported the issue. Nonetheless, according to the notes, the same problem was reported, and the landlord needed to send the appropriate contractor because there was a leak coming through the waste pipe, as previously reported. The resident has stated that the landlord sent contractors who were unable to complete the job, and that the handling of the matter was disjointed which delayed a resolution.
  6. On 8 August 2023, the landlord raised a repair (R1) which we understand to be an emergency repair that should be attended to within 24 hours. The repair log confirms that the landlord’s contractor could not access a tenanted flat where the leak was originating from, and the job was passed back to the landlord to be re-raised. At this point, the leak had remained unresolved for 63 days. The landlord did not then take a proactive approach in contacting the tenant of the flat to investigate the leak, which may have minimised the distress caused to the resident and further damage to her property. 
  7. The landlord stated that a CCTV survey was completed on 11 August 2023 to locate the source of the leak. The landlord has not provided a copy of the survey or its findings. Based on the information provided by the landlord and the resident’s account, it appears that the leak was coming from a pipe between 2 tenanted flats, for which the landlord was responsible to repair.
  8. The records provided by the landlord are incomplete and ambiguous, making it difficult for the Service to confirm with certainty when jobs were raised, attended to, and completed. It appears that access was gained to the tenanted flat on 25 August 2023, which was 80 days after the leak was reported and a significant delay from its repair timeframes. The landlord did not address this with the resident in its stage 2 response.
  9. The lack of records is concerning and represents a failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record-keeping and management are essential functions of a repairs service. This is not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because it helps the landlord fulfil its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord understands the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of the landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to them, as should contractors.
  10. It was unreasonable for the landlord to allow the resident to experience a leak throughout this period without making proactive efforts to fix it, especially given the reports that the leak was wastewater. It missed the opportunity to take assertive action to locate the leak and deal with the problem, which only increased the resident’s distress as the property continued to be damaged.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 response provide the resident with appropriate advice on claiming through her home contents insurance as well as information on how to submit a liability claim. However, at stage 2 the landlord stated that the resident must claim through her own insurance provider which was unfair and contradictory to the advice it had previously given and likely caused the resident further confusion.
  12. The resident informed us that the leak was fixed in early September 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence to support this claim. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that follow-up work was scheduled for 22 August 2023, which roughly aligns with the resident’s report. The evidence indicates that the leak took two to three months to resolve, in which time the resident reports that it caused significant damage to her property.
  13. If the landlord had acted sooner, been proactive, and taken responsibility for the leak in its pipes, then the resident’s inconvenience, distress, and damage to her property would likely have been minimised. The Service has found that the landlord’s failure to act swiftly amounts to maladministration. The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the leak in its response to the complaint, and therefore was unable to put things right for the resident or learn from outcomes.
  14. The resident informed the Service that the condition of her property had a negative impact on her. She explained that due to her mobility issues and working from home, the condition of the property left her traumatised. She described bubbling ceilings and fly infestations as particularly distressing. The resident experienced difficulty contacting the insurance company, and states that repairs to her home were not completed until May 2024, nearly a year after the leak was reported.
  15. The landlord did not consider the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in investigating the cause of the leak. The landlord did not acknowledge its failings or consider the detriment caused by its handling of the leak. The Service considers £500 compensation to be proportionate as a remedy to the impact the failings had on the resident. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for maladministration where the landlord’s failure adversely affected the resident. Examples of this category include a failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy, such as addressing repairs.
  16. Finally, it is pertinent to note that in January 2024 the Ombudsman carried out an inspection of the landlord in light of ongoing concerns about its handling of complaints. While the focus of this inspection was the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman noted a clear link to the landlord’s approach to repairs.
  17. It was noted that as a result of the landlord’s analysis of complaint volumes it had recently restructured its approach to responsive repairs and introduced a new regular inspection and preventative maintenance schedule to pre-empt potential problems. The landlord has also improved its contractor management arrangements. This new pro-active approach to repairs management means the landlord is better placed to address issues earlier and prevent complaints. The Ombudsman recommended that the landlord review its process for recording completed repairs to ensure it has a clear repair record which the resident agrees with.
  18. Further, in case reference 202109540 investigated in January 2024, the landlord was ordered to conduct a review into the delays in completing repairs and specifically to review its record keeping, communication and engagement on repairs in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) to improve its service.
  19. Considering the above, no further orders are made in terms of ‘learning’ on this case.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damage to her property.
    2. Record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
    2. Pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused because of its handling of the leak.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Review its guidance and/or procedures for staff, to ensure that its staff are aware of the correct advice and information to provide when leaseholders wish to make a claim for damage to their property/belongings and consider whether staff training is required. The outcome of this review should be shared with our Service, also within 6 weeks.