London Borough of Barnet (202234656)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234656

London Borough of Barnet

28 February 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of a leak.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has a secure tenancy of a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord does not have a copy of the tenancy agreement. Instead, it provided us with a template agreement. The resident has no known or noted vulnerabilities.
3. The landlord’s repair records note the resident reported a leak to the landlord in October 2022. She told the landlord this affected her bathroom ceiling and walls. The resident complained to the landlord about the leak on 10 November 2022.
4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 December 2022 and said:
   1. it attended to the leak the resident reported on 8 November 2022 and noted the walls were damp
   2. it investigated several properties but could not find the source of the leak and believed a “fracture in the rising mains pipe” was the cause
   3. it had not responded to the repair within its expected standards and offered the resident £100
   4. it promised to inspect the resident’s property and make good any damage once it fixed the leak
   5. it agreed to provide the resident with decoration vouchers but could not offer compensation for any of the resident’s belongings damaged by the leak as it required all residents to take out insurance.
5. In January 2023 the resident told the landlord that the leak was still causing damage to her bathroom and mentioned it had damaged her hallway. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 February 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 March 2023 and said:
   1. it upheld the resident’s complaint
   2. it had already started investigations to find the source of the leak before the resident reported it but negotiating access to different flats had slowed the investigations
   3. it apologised for the delays in resolving the leak and not keeping the resident updated, especially in January
   4. it was reviewing its leak management process in its blocks and aimed to introduce a new process to support quicker resolution of leaks and improved communication
   5. it had experienced difficulties in finding plumbers and apologised that it gave the resident incorrect information at stage 1 about the source of the leak
   6. it initially thought the leaks were from one source but now believed the leaks affecting four flats had a separate cause
   7. it now believed the source of the resident’s leak was from within her flat after visiting her neighbour in the flat below
   8. it agreed to attend the resident’s property on 6 April 2023 to investigate, offered the resident £400 and agreed to make good any damage after it fixed the leak.
6. The resident refused the offers of compensation. She has said the landlord fixed the leak to her bathroom, but she would like the landlord to find the cause of the leak to her kitchen and decorate the property. The resident would also like more compensation, including to cover the damage to towels and sheets she used to contain the leak. The landlord told this service that it is unaware of any ongoing leak.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

7. The resident said that she experienced a leak affecting her property since 2022 that initially affected her bathroom ceiling and walls. On 3 August 2023 the resident reported a new leak in her bathroom and a kitchen leak on 4 November 2023. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident reported these issues, there is no evidence to show these are a continuation of the leak complained about on 10 November 2022. There is also no evidence that the resident complained about these leaks or pursued a complaint through the landlord’s complaint procedures. These issues are therefore outside the scope of this investigation and do not form part of the Ombudsman’s investigation. We have considered the landlord’s handling of the leak the resident reported in 2022 up to its final response and any commitments it made as part of this.

The landlord’s handling of a leak

8. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy had five priority categories for repairs depending on the risk to the resident or their property. Under this policy the landlord had to deal with:
   1. emergencies where there is an immediate risk to a resident or a risk of severe damage to the structure or security of their property within 4 hours, under priority 1 and 2.
   2. responsive repairs where there is no immediate risk within 15 working days of it raising a job, under priority 3.
   3. programmed works requiring a pre-inspection within 25 working days under priority 4 and larger complex works within 60 working days under priority 5.
9. It is unclear when the resident first reported a leak. The landlord’s stage 2 response refers to the first report in September 2022. In contrast the landlord’s stage 1 response and repair records state the resident reported a leak affecting her bathroom ceiling and walls on 11 October 2022. The landlord raised a priority 4 job on that date that required a response within 25 working days. The Ombudsman considers it would have been appropriate of the landlord to have treated this leak with a higher priority in line with clause 5.2.3 of the landlord’s responsive repair policy. This suggests that water leaks may be an emergency. As it is unclear when the resident first reported the leak the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably or in line with its repairs policy.
10. The landlord’s repair records show that the landlord attended the leak on 29 October 2022 after the resident reported the leak was “uncontainable” on that day. This was under a P1 priority. The landlord found there was no leak in the resident’s property. The landlord’s response to the report on 29 October 2022 was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.
11. The landlord’s out of hours report from 6 November 2022, following another report of an uncontainable leak on that day, recommended the landlord access the 2 flats immediately above the resident. The landlord contacted the neighbour in the flat immediately above her. By the end of November 2022, the landlord concluded the source of the leak was from the flat 2 floors above the resident. The landlord’s repair notes indicated that the occupier of this flat was a leaseholder that agreed to repair a leak behind their kitchen units. The Ombudsman considers that, based on the available evidence, it was reasonable of the landlord to have left this occupier to repair the leak as the leaseholder was responsible for this.
12. The evidence shows that there was a gap in any reports of a leak from the resident between 10 November 2022 to 24 January 2023 when she reported that she still had a leak affecting the bathroom and hallway. The landlord raised a priority 3 job on that date to investigate the leak. The landlord’s repair note stated it sent a letter to the flat immediately above the resident to ask for access. The landlord attended the resident on 3 February 2023 and noted that it was possible the leak came from the property 2 floors above the resident. While the landlord said it visited the flat below the resident on 27 March 2023 it is unclear what action it took in relation to the properties above the resident in terms of access or inspections.
13. The landlord said the owner of the flat immediately above the resident told it on 6 April 2023 that she had an appointment to fix her bathroom leak on 30 April 2023. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of any follow up action it took to check the occupier completed this. The landlord has also not provided evidence of any attempts it made to access the property 2 floors above the resident. It would have been reasonable to do this as the landlord noted that the leak may be coming from these properties.
14. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it would investigate the leak in her property. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence to show what investigations were carried out or what the outcome of those investigations were. Without this we cannot say that the repair to the “CWT on the inlet pipe” on 6 April 2023, was appropriate to resolve the leak.  Therefore, we have made an order regarding this.
15. Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak because of:
    1. the uncertainty over when the resident first reported a leak.
    2. the lack of action taken by the landlord to access the properties above the resident to investigate the leak following her report of 24 January 2023.
    3. a lack of detail on the landlord’s repair record of 6 April 2023 over what work the landlord did and how it resolved the leak in line with the commitments it made in its stage 2 response.
16. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that she could make a claim on her insurance for belongings damaged by the leak. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate as the resident was responsible for insuring these under her tenancy. The landlord offered the resident decoration vouchers which we consider reasonable. This is because the landlord had no duty to redecorate under the resident’s tenancy.
17. The landlord offered the resident £400 for its failures. The Ombudsman considers, in line with our remedies guidance, that the compensation should be increased to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in leak handling. While there was no permanent impact on the resident its handling of the leaks did not show it fulfilled the commitments it made in its stage 2 response. This caused the resident additional distress for which she should be compensated.

The landlord’s complaint handling

18. The landlord has a 2 staged complaint policy that required it to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The resident complained on 10 November 2022 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 December 2022. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord wrote to the resident on 25 November 2022 and 12 December 2022 to extend the deadline for responding at stage 1. When the resident escalated her complaint on 3 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. It took the landlord 40 working days to respond against a target of 20 working days.
19. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 in line with the timescales within its complaint’s policy. While the landlord’s stage 2 response explained what action it would take to resolve the leak the landlord did not show that it adequately communicated to show that it had resolved the leaks. Nor did the landlord address the resident’s concerns about mould the resident mentioned on 24 January 2023. These service failures caused the resident a degree of frustration and distress. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made an award of compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

22. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. inspect the resident’s property for any evidence of leaks and share their findings with the resident and us.
    2. provide the resident, and us, with evidence of the inspections and a list of recommended works with timescales for completion. The landlord should start any work within 28 days of receiving the inspection report and use their best endeavours to complete any works within the timescales given.
    3. pay the resident directly £550 (less any compensation already paid) made up of:
       1. £500 (replacing the £400 offered at stage 2 of the complaint) for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leaks.
       2. £50 for the distress and inconvenienced caused by its complaint handling.
    4. contact the resident to offer the redecoration vouchers it offered within its stage 1 response if it has not done so already.
23. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.
24. Within 56 days of the date of this determination the landlord must confirm to us when it completed any recommended work or explain the reasons for any delays. The landlord must provide the resident and us with any revised timescale for completion if the works remain outstanding after 56 days of the date of this determination.