Lewisham Council (202202867)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202867

Lewisham Council

27 June 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 the landlord’s response to the reports of a leak into the resident’s property and its handling of the associated repairs.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a second floor flat within a block comprised of both tenanted and leasehold properties. The leak and the landlord’s investigations involved 3 flats located above the resident’s flat. These will be referred to as Flats A, B and C throughout this report.
The resident has provided evidence to this Service that she sublet the second bedroom of the flat, under a licence agreement, at the time of the complaint.
The landlord is a local authority and the freeholder of the building. It employs a management organisation to act on its behalf, which will also be referred to as “the landlord” in this report.

Summary of events

The landlord’s communication with the resident detailed reports of leaks in the building and action it had taken prior to the resident’s fist report of a leak. It noted that:
1. On 20 July 2021, a plumber attended Flat B to trace a leak affecting flats below. No leak was found.
2. On 22 July 2021, a plumber attended Flat A to trace for a leak. The operative reported back that work was required to knock through a section of wall between Flat A and B to access a stack pipe to remedy a leak.
3. On 23 July 2021, two operatives attended to knock through the section of wall but were unable to do so as the leaseholder of Flat B had not given their permission for the work.
The resident initially discovered a leak into her property on 30 July 2021 which was affecting the flat below hers, and both her kitchen and bathroom. An appointment was arranged for 5 August 2021, but operatives reported no access to the property. This was rearranged to 11 August 2021.
The resident has advised that she employed a plumber who attended the property on 10 August 2021 to source the leak by accessing the cavity wall in the bathroom. They were not able to identify the source of the leak.
The resident has advised that the landlord attended the property on 11 August 2021. The landlord’s communication indicates that access was required to Flat A above to trace and remedy the leak. The landlord’s communication notes that a new work order was raised on 16 August 2021 to access Flat A. The contractors reported that they had attempted to gain access twice but had not been successful.
The resident asked the landlord to provide an update on its investigation into the matter on 23 August 2021. She had been staying elsewhere due to the damage caused by the leak and her builder was waiting for the leak to be fixed so that they could complete the necessary work to the kitchen and bathroom. She received an automated response that advised her to report repairs via its online portal.
On 27 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and said that her builder called the landlord and was advised that there was no record of the situation. She advised that the walls of the property were saturated behind the tiling, and she was concerned about the safety of the electrics in the property. She said that she was paying rent elsewhere while the issues were ongoing and would be submitting a claim for her expenses. She asked that the landlord respond urgently.
The landlord’s communication notes that a leak was reported to its out of hours contractor on 30 August 2021 and that this was affecting three flats below. This was traced to Flat B and related to the washing machine supply pipe. This was resolved on 30 August 2021. The landlord confirmed this to the resident on 31 August 2021.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows that following a request from the resident, it emailed her on 13 September 2021 and provided forms for her to complete if she wished to raise a liability claim via its insurance team. It also provided an advice leaflet on the liability claims process.
The evidence shows that the leak into the resident’s property was not resolved. The resident’s plumber attended and could not find evidence of a leak within the bathroom. The resident and her plumber requested information from the landlord’s plumber who attended on 14 September 2021. The job notes provided indicated that the leak appeared to be coming from Flat C as the pipe went through the floor and into Flat B. The leak was believed to be related to a supply pipe.
The resident instructed a legal representative to act on her behalf. From 30 September 2021, the majority of the subsequent communication was sent on behalf of the resident by her legal representative. For clarity, the resident and her representative will be referred to as “the resident” from this point on.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 September 2021 and set out her record of events to date. She maintained that the entirety of her kitchen and bathroom needed to be disposed of due to the damage and she had needed to move into temporary rental accommodation. She believed that the landlord had breached the lease agreement as repairs had not taken place which had caused significant damage to her property. She asked that the landlord provided copies of all inspections, investigations, reports, schedules of work and any other documentation in relation to the leak. She also made the landlord aware that she would be considering raising a claim for her loss or damage, which could also include her legal fees.
The landlord responded on 14 October 2021 and advised that its repairs team would provide the relevant information the next day.
A Property MOT inspection took place across multiple properties on 21 October 2021. The quality inspection form provided detailed yes/no answers for the condition of various elements within the property. There are no further notes on the report in relation to the leak. The landlord has provided a note from the contractors to accompany the Property MOT report of the resident’s property. The note indicated that it seemed there had been a serious ongoing leak from Flat C in the boxing void from the original metal mains water pipe, which was seriously damaging the floors below, mainly Flat A and the resident’s flat.
Following contact from the resident’s MP, the landlord wrote to the MP on 22 October 2021 to advise that numerous visits had been made to a number of properties in the block to trace and identify the leak. It had gained access to Flats A, B and C. No leaks were found in Flat C and a leak to the washing machine supply pipe in Flat B was rectified on 30 August 2021. It had booked a property MOT for a number of properties, including the resident’s, for 21 October 2021. It was waiting for the appointment to be confirmed by the resident and Flat B. It advised that a full survey of each property would be carried out to identify the exact cause of the leak. It confirmed that it had sent an insurance claim form to the resident in relation to the damage caused to the property which would be considered by its insurance team.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 October 2021 and set out the record of events which has been summarised above. It noted that no leak was found following an inspection of Flat C on 14 September 2021. It had provisionally booked a Property MOT inspection to the 4 flats affected on 21 October 2021, but it was waiting for the resident to confirm the appointment. It said it would be undertaking a full and thorough survey of each property to identify the cause of the water leak and undertake repairs to resolve the matter.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 October 2021 and advised that contractors had attended on 21 October 2021 to complete a property MOT inspection, but they had been unaware of the leak in the property or any other property. She asked the landlord to confirm whether the contractors had found the cause of the leak and for a copy of the report.
The resident’s MP forwarded the response they had received from the landlord on 22 October 2021 to the resident on 27 October 2021.
On 8 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to her previous contact.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 22 November 2021 as she had not received a response. She said that the landlord’s response to her MP contained a number of inaccuracies. The letter also stated that no leak was found in Flat C on 14 September 2021 despite the contractor advising her that they believed the leak was coming from that property. In addition, the resident had confirmed the appointment for the property MOT on 14 October 2021 and this went ahead on 21 October 2021. She said that it was contradictory that the landlord had advised that she had not confirmed the appointment and the landlord’s letter was misleading as to the reasons for the Property MOT. She noted that the landlord had not yet provided a copy of the report as requested and said that she was becoming increasingly concerned as to the lack of investigation, communication and remedial work. She could not begin to remedy the damage to the property or move back until the leak was rectified. She asked the landlord to confirm that work would be undertaken urgently and for it to provide a copy of the report.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence as a stage 1 complaint on 23 November 2021 and confirmed that it would issue a response by 7 December 2021.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 7 December 2021. It noted the resident’s concerns regarding inaccuracies within its communication. It maintained that its contractor had attended Flat C on 14 September 2021 and found no leak. It apologised that its letter did not confirm that the appointment on 21 October 2021 had been confirmed by the resident. The resident’s comments about the MOT would be discussed with its contractors as the purpose of the MOT was to carry out a survey of repairs required at each property and undertake works. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and the delay in providing its contractor’s reports. It confirmed that it had requested these and that it was committed to completing the investigation so had identified the need to bring in a specialist consultant. It was now in the process of booking appointments to gain access to the affected properties and the specialist consultant would contact the resident directly. It confirmed that any claim for damages would be covered under an insurance claim once it had received a completed claim form.
The resident pursued the landlord for a copy of its contractor’s report on 22 December 2021 and 7 January 2022. On 14 January 2022, she asked that her complaint was escalated to the next stage as she had not received a response. She sent a further email on 18 January 2022 maintaining that she wished to escalate the complaint as she had not yet been able to return to the property.
The landlord responded on 19 January 2022. It apologised that the issue had not been resolved and for the delay in its acknowledgement. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to stage two and that it would provide its response by 9 February 2022.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 9 February 2022. It apologised for the delay in tracing the leak affecting the resident’s property and the inconvenience caused. It advised that it had appointed a specialist contractor to investigate the water leaks in the building but that after two incidents of abusive behaviour towards their staff, the specialist contractors had advised that they would not reattend. It apologised that this had caused a further delay and confirmed that it was committed to resolving the issue through its internal repairs team. It acknowledged that there had been an unacceptable delay in providing the report requested by the resident despite her requests. It attached the reports and additional notes from 21 October 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 February 2022 to advise that the landlord’s plumber had attended the property on 16 February 2022, however, they were in the property for a few minutes to look at the damage and then left. They attended Flat A and suggested that the leak could be the result of a faulty bath seal. They then attempted to visit Flat B but failed to gain access, and did not attend Flat C. She was concerned about the process as the reports provided indicated that Flat C was believed to be the root of the leak. She understood that the landlord had experienced difficulty gaining access to Flat B and asked what steps were being taken to gain access where a resident refused to cooperate. She advised that she would be escalating the complaint to stage three of the landlord’s process as she was unable to use her property or commence remedial works until the leak was resolved.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage three of the landlord’s complaints process (independent adjudicator) on 23 February 2022. She set out the record of events as detailed above and explained that she remained dissatisfied as the landlord had failed to carry out repairs to remedy the leak into her property and she believed it had breached the lease agreement. She was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and the delay in providing the report following the Property MOT on 21 October 2021. She advised that the delays had caused significant stress which necessitated in her instructing a legal representative. She remained unable to live in the property or commence remedial works until the cause of the leak had been determined and rectified. She had suffered financial loss as a result of the damage and lack of substantive response from the landlord. She advised that to date, her legal fees amounted to £3149.40, and she had lost rental income from 1 August 2021 to date which amounted to £4375. She was in the process of making a separate insurance claim for the remedial works and accommodation, however, there was no guarantee, and she reserved the right to raise a claim for these costs to the landlord if necessary. She asked that she was offered compensation due to the landlord’s failings.
The resident sought an update from the landlord regarding the leak on 7 March 2022. The landlord responded on 11 March 2022 and confirmed it had passed her request to its repairs team. It apologised for the delay in responding.
The independent adjudicator issued its response to the resident on 16 March 2022 and detailed the following:
1. It outlined a summary of the events hat had occurred from July 2021 to date. It acknowledged that there had been a delay and it had taken too long for the landlord to supply the inspection reports. It noted that the reports provided lacked detail and substance, with yes/no answers and no detail.
2. Taking into account the difficulties of tracing a leak in a block of flats and there seemingly having been more than one leak, it had taken longer than necessary to race and resolve the water ingress affecting the property, which had not been resolved.
3. The independent adjudicator could not say that the delays had resulted in loss of income or a need to incur legal costs without reaching a view on liability. The landlord was not automatically liable if the some or all of the water ingress originated within another leasehold property in the block.
4. The independent adjudicator was not able to determine legal liability as this was a matter for the courts. As such, it would be reasonable for the resident to include the loss of income and legal costs in her insurance claim against the landlord and pursuing this through the courts if necessary. The independent adjudicator made no recommendation in relation to this.
5. The independent adjudicator partially upheld the resident’s complaint and concluded that the landlord had taken too long to supply the inspection reports and too long to bring in a specialist leak contractor. It recommended that the landlord review the arrangements with its contractors when commissioning inspection reports.
Between 16 March 2022 and 25 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and pursued an update from it on approximately 12 occasions. The landlord responded to a number of emails to advise that it had asked its repairs team to respond. On 21 April 2022, the matter was passed to a repairs manager and it was then passed to their line manager on 27 April 2022. The resident requested a call to discuss the situation on 29 April 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the call took place.
The landlord’s internal records show that further investigation into the leak took place on 5 and 10 May 2022. On 10 May 2022, the landlord’s records show that a quote was being prepared to rectify a leak to a supply pipe between Flat C and Flat B, and to renew a hot feed pipe to Flat A in order to resolve the leak issues within the building.
The resident asked the landlord to provide an update on 24 May 2022. She expressed concern that her neighbour in Flat C had also received no contact from the landlord. She pursued her request on 27 May 2022 and 8 June 2022 as she had not received a response.
The landlord responded on 14 June 2022 and apologised that the resident’s previous email had been placed in a sub-folder. It advised that it was its understanding that the leak had been resolved. It asked for information about what was outstanding. The resident responded on the same day. She advised that the leak was still an issue and was worse due to works carried out a few weeks prior in Flat A. She did not understand how the landlord had concluded that the leak had been resolved. It had been another month without any substantial communication, only to be told emails were being automatically being moved to an unmanned folder. She asked it to provide a full and substantial update.
The resident further advised on 16 June 2022 that she had been informed that an asbestos check had been completed in Flat A that week, but that Flat B was not cooperating. On 17 June 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it was waiting for the outcome of the asbestos report for Flat A and an update regarding access to Flat B. On 21 June 2022, it confirmed that there had been a missed appointment to Flat B to complete an asbestos survey which it had rebooked for 28 June 2022. On 29 June 2022, the landlord advised that it had gained access to Flat B to complete the asbestos survey and was waiting for the outcome of the inspection. It confirmed that it had received the other report for Flat A. The report was provided on 1 July 2022.
Following contact from the resident’s local councillor, the landlord wrote to the councillor on 1 July 2022. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in relation to the leak. It confirmed the actions it had taken and advised that the case was referred to its newly formed Leaks Resolution Team and had identified the cause of the leak to a concealed pipe in Flat B. it was in the process of completing an asbestos survey and was waiting to receive the report. Depending on the findings, it would complete the repairs as a matter of urgency. It acknowledged that there had been failings in the management of the case and would ensure an agreement was reached in relation to compensation for the damages and the inconvenience the resident had experienced.
The resident pursued an update from the landlord on 4 July 2022. On the same day, the landlord confirmed that the reports had been sent to its plumbing contractors and was awaiting a date for the works. Its records show that the asbestos reports were passed to its contractor that day.
The resident sought a further update from the landlord on 12 July 2022 and 18 July 2022. On 19 July 2022, the landlord confirmed that it was chasing a start date with its plumbing contractor.
The resident pursued this again on 25 July 2022. She had been informed by the tenant in Flat A that they had been asked for their availability for 1 August 2022, However, the tenant in Flat B was unavailable and needed to get permission from their landlord (the leaseholder of the flat). The resident asked the landlord to communicate with contact with all flats involved as she was concerned that this would further delay the repair.
The resident requested an update again on 29 July 2022. On the same day, the landlord confirmed that works to Flat A had been confirmed for 1 August 2022 and it was trying to contact the tenant of Flat B to arrange a date. A supervisor would be attending on 1 August 2022 to aid in accessing Flat B.
On 3 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord as it was her understanding that the repairs had been completed to Flats A, B and C. She had noticed some damp in the corner of the kitchen ceiling which she had been told was related to works carried out in Flat A the previous day. She asked the landlord to provide a final report as to the findings of the leaks, the root cause and the works carried out to resolve the issues.
The landlord responded on 11 August 2022 to confirm that all works were completed. It confirmed that it had asked its contractors to provide the relevant information. On 22 August 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and provided a summary of the works undertaken and photos.
In her communication with this Service, the resident said that she moved back into the property on 29 October 2022. She arranged for remedial works to be carried out independently and recovered the cost of the remedial works and her stay in alternative accommodation through a separate insurance claim. She has provided this Service with evidence of her legal costs which amounted to £5856.60 between September 2021 and August 2022. She has also provided evidence that she was receiving rental income and had a lodger from March 2021.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the delay in rectifying the leak into her property and that she was not able to live at the property during this period. She was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication despite it being aware that she was incurring additional financial costs as a result of the issues. As a resolution, the resident advised that she wished to be compensated for her out of pocket expenses, including her legal fees and loss of rental income, during the period in question.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the reports of a leak into the resident’s property and its handling of the associated repairs, as well as her request for compensation and reimbursement of costs.

The landlord’s Leasehold Guide states that if water leaks into a leasehold property, the leaseholder should first try to see where it is coming from. If possible, they should contact other flats as the problem may be able to be resolved. If the leak cannot be identified, the leaseholder should contact the landlord’s repairs service. The landlord would then make arrangements to carry out a repair if the water was coming from an area of the building it was responsible for maintaining. The guide advises leaseholders to contact their own insurer in relation to a claim for any damage. In some cases, leaseholders may be able to raise a claim with the landlord’s insurers. The guide further states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing any shared plumbing facilities between properties. The landlord would also be responsible for carrying out plumbing repairs to properties housing its tenants.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that leaseholders are required to give the landlord’s staff and contractors access when required. The policy also provides target repair priorities and response times for the landlord’s repairs service; emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours and made safe, urgent repairs should be completed within 3 working days and routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
Occasionally, completion of work will fall outside of these timescales, including where work needs to be coordinated with multiple repair operatives, where the repair requires it to negotiate access through a property owned by a third party and where inspections are required to diagnose an issue to initiate a repair. The landlord would be expected to proactively communicate with residents and provide updates on the progress of works where repairs are outstanding to satisfactorily manage their expectations.

The landlord’s handling of the leak and its communication with the resident.

It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue at the outset, especially in blocks of flats where multiple properties may be involved. This in itself would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord and the landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when determining what work to undertake.
However, in this case, the delay in identifying and confirming the cause of the leak between 30 July 2021 and 10 May 2022 was extensive and unreasonable. This was likely to have caused significant inconvenience to the resident and it is evident that she also needed to spend time and trouble pursuing a resolution and updates from the landlord herself and via her legal representative, local MP and councillor. The delay is especially concerning when considering that an operative had initially identified on 22 July 2021, in response to Flat A’s report of a leak, that there was likely a leak from a concealed pipe in Flat B. This was not pursued further at the time due to access issues and indicates a missed opportunity by the landlord to pursue this in an attempt to resolve the leak at an earlier stage.
The resident reported a leak affecting her property on 30 July 2021. The landlord’s records show that an operative visited the resident’s property on 11 August 2021 to trace the leak following a report from the tenant below the resident. Following this, the landlord said it experienced difficulty gaining access to Flat A to trace the leak. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord communicated with the resident until 1 September 2021, when it confirmed that it had resolved a leak from a washing machine pipe in Flat B on 31 August 2021. The lack of communication was likely to have been frustrating and concerning for the resident who had already advised the landlord that she was not able to live in the property due to the damage caused and had been pursuing an update on the landlord’s investigation into the issue.
Following this, it is noted that the resident had reported that the leak was unresolved. The resident has confirmed to this Service that the landlord’s plumber had attended on 14 September 2021. She has provided a screenshot of the job notes provided by the landlord’s plumber at her request. The job notes indicate that the leak appeared to be coming from a pipe, that looked like a mains pipe, that went through Flat C and Flat B. This was affecting both Flat A and the resident’s flat. The landlord informed the resident on 25 October 2021 and 7 December 2021, within its complaint response, that no leak was found during the appointment on 14 September 2021.
While it remains unclear as to whether the landlord had access to the job notes provided to this Service by the resident, it has not provided evidence or job notes it had relied upon when determining that no leak had been identified and how it satisfied itself that the matter had been fully investigated. Nor has it provided the records of any work undertaken to access Flat C for inspection on this date. As a result of the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the matter was satisfactorily investigated at the time.
The landlord advised the resident and her legal representative on 25 October 2021 that a Property MOT had been scheduled for 21 October 2021. This had already taken place 4 days prior, and the communication was likely to have made the resident question the landlord’s reliability. In addition, the landlord’s letter advised that it was waiting for the resident to confirm the appointment, which she had already done as the visit had been completed. While the landlord acted fairly within its complaint responses by apologising to the resident for the inaccuracies, the inaccuracies suggest that staff training may be required or that the landlord’s staff may not have had access to up-to-date records to allow them to provide accurate responses. A recommendation has been made below in view of this.
Despite the landlord’s assertion that the purpose of the Property MOT was to undertake a full and thorough survey of each property, identify the exact cause of the leak and undertake repairs, the reasons provided for the inspection did not align with the information eventually provided within the report. The report provided by the contractor lacked detail; it provided basic yes/no answers as to the condition of the property, with no further information about work required. In addition, the reports make no mention of a leak. There was also a significant delay in providing the report to the resident between 21 October 2021 and 9 February 2022 and the landlord had advised that it was chasing for the report to be provided by its repairs team. This suggests that the landlord had not had sight of the report during this period and indicates poor record keeping and information management between departments. The issues above were likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident as she had spent significant time and trouble pursuing the report, which then did not provide relevant information in terms of the proposed actions to resolve the ongoing leak into her property.
The landlord acted appropriately within its complaint responses by acknowledging the resident’s comments that the operatives had not been aware of leaks within the building at the time of the visit and confirming that feedback would be provided to its contractors on this basis in relation to the purpose of the Property MOT. While it acted fairly by apologising to the resident for the inconvenience caused, it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to have offered compensation to the resident in recognition of the delay and poor communication at this stage.
The landlord has not provided documentary evidence of the actions it had taken in relation to the leak between 21 October 2021 and mid-February 2022, a period of approximately 4 months. While it had advised within its stage 1 complaint response on 7 December 2021 that it had identified the need to bring in a specialist leak contractor, and later advised within its stage 2 complaint response on 9 February 2022 that the specialist leak contractor refused to attend following 2 instances of abusive behaviour towards their staff, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence confirming the actions taken during this period. The landlord acknowledged the delay and inconvenience this may have caused which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that it was taking reasonable actions in an attempt to diagnose and resolve the leak during this period or that the delay at this stage was outside of its control.
The landlord included a note from the operative alongside the Property MOT report provided to the resident on 9 February 2022. This highlighted that there seemed to be a serious ongoing leak from Flat C (in a void) from the original metal mains water pipe, which was seriously damaging the floors below. An operative attended the resident’s property on 16 February 2022. However, she advised that the operative had not attempted to visit Flat C, which was likely to have caused concern and uncertainty to her as to whether the landlord had given operatives clear direction. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of what the operative was instructed to do on this date, and it remains unclear as to why they did not act in line with previous suggestions about where the leak originated.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to confirm that any further action was taken in response to the ongoing leak between 16 February 2022 and early May 2022, a period of just under 3 months. During this period, the resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing an update from the landlord via her legal representative. The communication was often met with a lack of substantive response or no response at all and was likely to have caused significant concern and inconvenience and came at an additional expense to the resident. It is noted that when the landlord responded during this period, it advised that the matter had been passed to its repairs team. Ultimately, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken ownership of the issue and arranged for the resident to have a point of contact to avoid any confusion during the course of the complaint.
The leak was confirmed as being caused by a concealed supply pipe between Flat C and Flat B, and that work was also required to a pipe in Flat A, between 5 and 10 May 2022. The delay in identifying the cause of the leak is of concern as operatives had suggested that a pipe involving both Flat B and Flat C was the likely area from which the leak originated in July 2021, September 2021, and October 2021. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm that this area was investigated earlier. This indicates that there were several missed opportunities for the landlord to act on its contractors’ suggestions and identify and resolve the leak at an earlier date.
Following identification of the leak on 10 May 2022, there was a delay in completing remedial works until 1 August 2022. It is noted that the landlord required an asbestos survey to be completed before works could progress, which was reasonable to ensure that the work could be completed safely. Some delay at this stage was likely to be outside of the landlord’s control as it said that it had experienced difficulty gaining access to Flat B. However, it is noted that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor between May and June 2022, and it did not provide updates of the steps it was taking to progress the repair. This was likely to have caused her additional concern.
Further, the landlord informed the resident on 14 June 2022 that her emails had been placed in a sub-folder and that it was its understanding that the leak had been resolved. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm how this assertion was made at the time and this was again likely to have caused significant concern for the resident as the issue was still present. The landlord offered no apology to the resident which would have been appropriate given the uncertainty and distress that this was likely to have caused. The landlord did take steps to improve its communication with the resident towards the end of June 2022 but it would have been appropriate for it to have maintained this level of contact throughout the repair and sought to have proactively updated her.
The evidence provided highlights that there were several missed opportunities for the landlord to act on suggestions from its contractors about where the leak was likely to be located and confirm the source of the leak at an earlier date. There were also several unexplained delays in its handling of the resident’s reports and the landlord has not provided evidence of the steps it was taking during these periods. The landlord failed to handle the leak proactively and holistically from the outset which would have been appropriate given the extent of the damage being caused to the resident’s property. In addition, its communication with the resident and her legal representative was poor and it failed to proactively provide updates in relation to its investigation.
Overall, the resident went to significant time and trouble to progress the investigation and repairs. This will have caused additional frustration, distress, inconvenience and expense to the resident; led her to feel issues raised were unresolved; and undermined her confidence in the landlord. While the landlord acknowledged delays and the inconvenience this caused the resident, later acknowledging failings in the management of the case, its apology to the resident was insufficient given the significant impact on her and her property. It is noted that the landlord did take a point of learning from the case in that it established a specified leak resolution team for reports of leaks moving forward. However, it failed to demonstrate that it had fully understood its failings, considered any missed opportunities, or identified further steps it needed to take to improve its response to similar circumstances in the future.
The landlord has not provided any form or compensation to the resident despite its assurances to her MP in July 2022 that it would ensure an agreement was reached in relation to compensation for the inconvenience the resident had experienced. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that financial compensation is warranted in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over the 12-month period and the time and trouble she invested in pursuing a resolution.
The resident has asked that the landlord compensate her for her loss of rental income while the leak was ongoing and has provided evidence that she had a lodger occupying the second bedroom of her flat. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine legal liability or order the landlord to compensate the resident for damages as these matters are better suited to be pursued through an insurance claim or the courts. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that it is not in the jurisdiction of this Service to consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
The landlord acted fairly in its communication to the resident by explaining that this matter would need to form part of an insurance claim through its liability insurer if she wished to pursue this. It is noted that the landlord initially provided an insurance claim form to the resident on 13 September 2021. The resident has advised this Service that she has not pursued a claim through the landlord’s insurers. If the resident believes that the landlord is liable for her loss of rental income during the course of the leak, she may wish to pursue this with the landlord via its liability insurer, or seek independent legal advice on the options available to her.
It is evident that the landlord’s communication failures in this case necessitated in an unreasonable level of involvement by both the resident and her legal representative in pursuing a resolution. It should be noted that employing a legal representative was the resident’s choice and it may not have been necessary in order for the resident to pursue a repair or a complaint, as she was able to communicate with the landlord without a professional intermediary. However, she clearly believed that this was necessary given the perceived lack of progress between July and September 2021, and was not to know how long the repairs would take or the level of involvement required.
The resident has asked that she is reimbursed £5856.60 for her legal fees and has provided this Service with invoices evidencing the fees she had incurred between September 2021 and August 2022. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to reimburse the entire £5856.60 in legal fees, given it is not evident that legal support was necessary to help progress the complaint throughout the entire course of events. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue a reimbursement of her legal costs for the period in question.
However, the landlord was aware that the resident was incurring legal fees from 30 September 2021. Despite this, there were significant communication failures, especially, but not limited to, between February 2022 and April 2022, where no substantial response was provided despite multiple emails from the resident’s legal representative seeking an update. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation is warranted for the significant time and trouble the resident spent pursuing a resolution. As such, the landlord is to offer the resident compensation, as detailed below, in recognition of the significant time and trouble caused to her, including the effort and expense she went to in obtaining legal representation during the period of the landlord’s delay. It is also ordered to pay compensation to the resident in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of failures identified within the report, including the delays and missed opportunities by the landlord to identify and resolve the leak at an earlier date.
The compensation awards ordered below are in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate where there was a single significant failure in service or a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, where the landlord’s response to the failures undermined the landlord/resident relationship, and where the failures accumulated over a significant period of time.
Given the extent of the failings in this case, the landlord should complete a management review of the case to consider any missed opportunities and staff training needs and establish points of learning to improve its future response to similar cases. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord would also benefit from reviewing its knowledge and information management processes alongside the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) to ensure that it acts on recommendations made within the report and that its processes are in line with best practice. As such, a recommendation has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the reports of a leak into the resident’s property and its handling of the associated repairs.

Reasons

The evidence provided shows that the landlord was made aware that the leaks reported in the building were likely related to concealed pipework running through the affected properties as early as 22 July 2021, prior to the resident’s report of a leak affecting her property. There was a significant delay in confirming the cause of the leak until 10 May 2022 and it was not resolved until 1 August 2022. During this time, the landlord failed to provide adequate updates to the resident which caused the resident to spend additional time and trouble pursuing a resolution.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £1800, comprised of:
  1. £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the delays in identifying and resolving the leak into her property over a 12-month period.
  2. £1000 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident, including the effort and expense she went to in obtaining legal representation during the period, as a result of its poor communication.
3. The landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case and provide a copy of the review to this Service within 6 weeks of the date of this report. This should consider:
  1. the evidence that was available (or may have been available) regarding the leak diagnosis and any missed opportunities there were between July 2021 and August 2022;
  2. how the landlord will ensure that it shares accurate information between it and its contractors in future;
  3. its processes for diagnosing, and gaining access for, block leaks affecting multiple properties;
  4. any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. The landlord sends the resident another insurance claim form so that she is able to pursue her request for compensation in relation to her loss of rental income during the leak. It should also confirm whether there are any specific timescales in which she would need to raise a claim for it to be considered.
2. The landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) (May 2023) alongside its current record keeping practices to ensure that it acts on recommendations made and that its processes are in line with best practice.
The landlord is to confirm its intentions in respect of the above recommendations within four weeks.