London Borough of Brent (202225032)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202225032
London Borough of Brent
28 January 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
- This complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Response to the report of a leak into the resident’s property from the flat above.
- Response to a request for insurance details in relation to the internal damage to the resident’s property as a result of the leak from the flat above.
- Handling of the associated complaint.
Background
- The resident is a non-resident leaseholder of the landlord. At the time of the leak, the resident had tenants living in their property. The property is a flat which is managed by the managing agent who acted as the resident’s representative in this case. The resident’s representative will be referred to as “the representative “in this report.
- On 8 October 2019, the representative reported a leak into the resident’s property from the flat above. The representative reported the leak again on 8 November 2019, noting that this had previously been reported on 8 October 2019. They asked for action to be taken as soon as possible. The representative continued to chase the landlord regarding the leak from the property above and to ask when this would be repaired so that the resident could redecorate. In their email to the landlord of 15 February 2020 the representative also requested an insurance claim form.
- The representative copied the landlord into an email to the local mayor on 26 November 2020. In their email they said that after many attempts to get the insurance details in April 2020, the insurer had said that as the claim was not reported within 3 months of the incident they would not pay out. The landlord logged this email as a formal complaint.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 December 2020, saying that:
- It recognised that there was an unacceptable delay in responding to the initial report on 8 October 2019. There were also further delays in the quote process and issuing of the Section 20 notice to the leaseholder of the flat above.
- Its communication had been poor. The landlord noted that it should have notified the representative of the position regarding the balcony repair when it became aware that it was not responsible for this.
- It had not responded to their request for an insurance claim form.
- It would like to offer the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the above service failures and the time and trouble taken in seeking a resolution.
- The landlord went on to explain that:
- Under the terms of the lease, the resident was responsible for all internal repairs. The landlord suggested that the resident go back to their insurers for redress in this regard. If the resident were of the view that it was liable for the remedial work, they could in this instance use the form available on the relevant page of its website to make a claim.
- It had contacted the managers of its Customer Experience Team and asked that they remind all their staff of the importance of responding to emails in a timely manner and ensuring repair orders were raised within its prescribed timescales.
- It had addressed the delays that occurred in the quote process with its contractor and the relevant staff involved.
- It had reviewed its systems and processes to be able to better track and remedy repairs and more complex cases such as this, where several stakeholders, contractors and surveyors may have been involved.
- As part of this process, regular updates were now provided to the respective parties.
- The landlord apologised that these new measures did not address the historical issues the resident had experienced, but it was confident the lessons it had learned, would assist it to improve its repairs service.
- The representative escalated the complaint on 8 February 2021. In their escalation request the representative said that the landlord’s communication with regards to this matter was ‘not only poor but negligent and careless.’ They also said that the landlord’s ‘neglect and disregard’ to provide the insurance details, resulted in the insurer refusing their claim as the legal notification time limit had passed. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same day.
- On 16 October 2021, the representative emailed the landlord a copy of their escalation request of 8 February 2021. On 18 February 2022, the representative emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive, enclosing a copy of a letter dated 18 March 2021, responding to the questions raised by the complaints investigator, and saying they were still waiting for the landlord’s response.
- The landlord issued its final response on 30 March 2022:
- With regards to its response to the report of the leak the landlord said that it had already accepted that:
- The repair to the balcony of the flat above was not completed as quickly as it should have been.
- The issue of who was responsible for repairing the balcony should have been clarified and resolved much sooner than it was.
- The process of obtaining quotes for the works should have progressed more quickly than it did.
- With regards to the insurance issues, the landlord said:
- There was no evidence that a request for a claim form was made before the representative’s email of 15 February 2020.
- Prior to that date, it would have been reasonable for officers to assume that the resident was familiar with the insurance claim process and did not need any advice in relation to this.
- If the representative had copies of any emails sent prior to 15 February 2020 in which they specifically asked for a claim form, or information about how to make a claim, they were asked to forward this so that this could be reviewed.
- Claims under the insurance policy were usually declined if a claim was not made within 90 days of the incident occurring. It was therefore already too late for the resident to successfully pursue a claim by the time her representative first raised this specific issue with the landlord on 15 February 2020.
- The resident had previously been emailed a copy of the building insurance policy and schedule on 13 January 2016. The schedule included telephone contact details for making a claim. The resident therefore already had information about how to make a claim.
- Nevertheless, it would ask its Housing Management Service to take the specific details of the resident’s complaint into account as part of its ongoing review of how to improve communication with leaseholders and their agents regarding insurance issues.
- With regards to how the complaint was handled, the landlord:
- Accepted that its complaints investigator did not handle their communication with the resident nor her representative as effectively as they should have done.
- Confirmed that the reason the representative’s email of 16 October 2021 was not responded to was because it was received at the time the complaints investigator left its employment. Arrangements were subsequently made to ensure that emails sent to the complaints investigator were redirected to other officers within its complaints service.
- Said there was no record of the representative’s letter dated 18 March 2021 having been received at that time. The dating of this letter was also inconsistent with what the representative told the complaints investigator on 23 March 2021, and said in their email dated 29 April 2021, that they were still to reply to her questions. Nevertheless, this letter and the evidence provided proved useful for the investigation of the final review of the complaint.
- Rejected the resident’s claim that it should reimburse her for the £15,600 plus VAT incurred in the repairing of the damage to her flat because of the leak.
- The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in completing the repair to the balcony and for further poor communication with the representative following its stage 1 complaint response of 31 December 2020. To put this right the landlord offered the resident a total of £700 compensation. This included the £200 it had offered at stage 1.
- With regards to its response to the report of the leak the landlord said that it had already accepted that:
Matters that occurred following the landlord’s final response.
- Following further correspondence between the landlord and the representative, the landlord issued a further complaint response on 18 November 2022. In this response the landlord:
- Said that it had accepted that its delay in responding to their emails about the leak, from 8 October 2019 onwards, would have contributed to the delay in making an insurance claim. At the same time, if the resident or her representative’s intention was to seek to claim the cost of any internal repairs via an insurance claim, it would have been reasonable to expect them to have understood that there was likely to be a time limit for making a claim.
- The invoice dated 14 June 2021, showing a total cost of £18,720, was reviewed by its housing management service, whose view was that the total cost appeared excessive in relation to the specific work listed on the invoice. It was also unclear whether all the work listed on the invoice was solely required to repair the damage, or whether some of it related to improvement work.
- Bearing in mind all these factors, whilst it would not be appropriate to reimburse the resident the total costs, it considered it reasonable to increase the £700 compensation offered in its stage 2 response to a total of £2,700. This being made up of the £700 offered, plus a contribution of £2,000 towards the reasonable costs of the internal repair works.
- The representative emailed the landlord on 23 November 2022 to reject its increased offer saying:
- The resident would be willing to accept £10,000.
- The resident rejected the landlord’s position that she should have known who the insurer was.
- The insurance claim could not be made for damages caused as the leak needed to be repaired prior to the leaseholder submitting quotes to the insurer for the damage caused.
- 90 days had passed, through no fault of the resident and therefore the landlord should review its position.
- The landlord responded to the representative on 7 December 2022 stating that:
- The responsibility for making the claim in good time rested with the resident.
- The Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA) 1985 s30A gave leaseholders the right to request insurance information from their landlord. It was unfortunate that the request for insurance information was not made until after the time period for making a claim had expired. Although the landlord acknowledged the delays in communicating with the resident regarding the repair, it did not accept that it had acted negligently.
- Based on the information and documentation it had been provided with to date, it did not feel it was in a position to increase the £2,700 compensation offered.
- The representative referred the complaint to this Service on 3 February 2023.
Assessment and findings
- When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
- Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
- Put things right.
- Learn from outcomes.
- When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what, if anything, the landlord has done to put things right. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
- The Ombudsman is an alternative dispute resolution process to taking legal action. That means that we cannot make the same findings that a court would, and we do not operate in the same way as a court does. We do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence and liability.
- The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive, and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service considers a range of factors. These include any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
Response to the report of a leak into the resident’s property from the property above.
- On 8 October 2019, the representative reported a leak into the resident’s property from the flat above.
- Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, for which it is responsible, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable enquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
- In addition to the above, and in line with general customer service standards, the landlord would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations. However, it is evident that it failed to do so in this case.
- Given the repair was reported to the landlord on 8 October 2019, and at that time it accepted responsibility for the repair, it would have been expected to have completed the repair in accordance with the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy. In this case, within 28 calendar days, in line with its timescale for a routine repair.
- However, as acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint responses the repair was not raised until 26 November 2019, some 49 calendar days after the repair was reported. During this time, the representative continued to report the leak to the landlord but received no response.
- The quote for the works to the balcony was not received until 10 February 2020, more than a further 60 calendar days later and over 100 calendar days since the repair had been reported. It should be re-iterated that at this time the landlord believed that it was responsible for the repair.
- The first evidence of the landlord responding to the representative, other than through automated responses, was on 13 February 2020. In its email of that day the landlord said that it had checked its system for any reports, but these had not been uploaded yet. The landlord said that it had emailed its property services team requesting an update ‘as a matter of urgency’ and had asked them to raise any outstanding works orders.
- There was then a further delay, with the quote being sent back to the contractor on 25 February 2020 with a request that it be re-submitted. It has been noted that this was some 15 calendar days after the quote had been received by the landlord. There is no evidence of the representative being provided with an update at this time. There is also no evidence of them being provided with an update when the revised quote was received by the landlord on 28 February 2020 at that time.
- The representative emailed the landlord again on 4 March 2020 saying that they were yet to hear from it about the leak. The landlord responded on 12 March 2020 apologising for the delay. It went on to say that a quote had been received for the works to the balcony of the flat above and was resubmitted for approval, as additional works were required. The landlord said that the quote should be approved within the next few days. Once this had happened it said it would let the representative know and would make arrangements with the leaseholder in the flat above for the works to be carried out.
- The representative emailed the landlord again to chase the repair on 23 March 2020 and 21 April 2020. There was a delay in the landlord providing its response and on 22 April 2020 it asked that the representative confirm the address of the property the leak was coming from. To have received this response would understandably have resulted in unnecessary frustration to the resident and her representative. The representative responded the same day, providing the address and saying that the landlord already had all the details.
- In an internal email of 24 April 2020, the landlord’s senior surveyor responded to the representative’s email of 21 April 2020. They said that a section 20 notice had been sent to the leaseholder of the flat above, and that the landlord could not undertake any works until either the leaseholder of the flat above had signed the waiver notice, or the notice had expired.
- However, the landlord did not serve the leaseholder of the flat above with the Section 20 notice until 4 May 2020. Evidence provided by the landlord confirms that the Section 20 was issued ‘as the works were to be undertaken to the balcony of which the leaseholder had sole use’.
- On 18 June 2020, the leaseholder of the flat above emailed the landlord to say that the balcony, which was the cause of the leak into the resident’s property, was included as internal fixtures on their lease and therefore they were responsible for the repair. Given that Section 20 notifications should be responded to within 30 days, and as the landlord was aware that the leak was resulting in damage to the resident’s flat, it is unclear why it failed to chase the leaseholder of the flat above for their response prior to 18 June 2020.
- The leaseholder of the flat above, said that they would use their own contractor to carry out the works, and on 25 August 2020, emailed the landlord to confirm that the works to their balcony had been completed.
- The landlord carried out a post-inspection of the works on 25 September 2020. which found that these were completed to a satisfactory standard.
- Overall, the repair to the balcony that was the cause of the leak into the resident’s property took 10 months, from 8 October 2019 to 25 August 2020, to be completed. This was an excessive amount of time for the repair to be completed.
- It is recognised that the landlord would not have been responsible for the length of time it took for the works to be completed once it had been agreed that they were in fact not its responsibility. However, it is evident that there were multiple failures by the landlord, prior to it becoming aware that it was not responsible for the repair, which contributed to the lengthy delay in the completion of that repair.
- In its complaint responses, the landlord:
- Acknowledged that the repair to the balcony of the flat above was not completed as quickly as it should have been.
- Accepted that the issue of who was responsible for repairing the balcony should have been clarified and resolved much sooner than it was.
- Accepted that there was a delay in raising the repair, this not being done until 26 November 2019.
- Acknowledged that there was an ‘unacceptable’ delay in reviewing and authorising the quote, which meant that the Section 20 was not issued until 4 May 2020.
- Acknowledged that its communication had been poor.
- Acknowledged that the way in which the case had been managed, did not meet the required standards.
- Apologised for any distress or inconvenience which may have been caused as a result.
- In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord offered the resident a total of £200 compensation. Given the landlord did not provide a breakdown of the £200 compensation, this has been assumed to have been made up of £100 for the repair failings and its failings with regards to the representative’s request for insurance information. The landlord offered no further compensation for the repair failing in its stage 2 response, in which it set out only what it had already accepted.
- Given the extent of the failures with regards to this element of the complaint, and as the £100 fell well below what this Service would consider to be reasonable redress for the resident, had the landlord not made a further offer to the resident a finding of maladministration would have been made in this case.
- However, following further correspondence with the representative, the landlord revisited its position with regards to the level of compensation it was willing to offer. It considered the invoice the representative provided and, having explained why it believed the costs to be excessive, it increased its compensation offer by a further £2,000. The landlord said that this represented 50% of what it believed the reasonable costs of the internal repair works would be. This meant that the overall compensation offered for this element of the complaint was £2,100.
- It is the view of this Service that, given the landlord was not responsible for the repair to the leak that resulted in the damage to the resident’s property, the landlord’s offer was fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the level of its failures in this case. This is because this figure is in line with amounts suggested in this Service’s remedies where there have been serious failings by the landlord which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
- In addition to being fair and making things right, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to consider what learning it can take from complaints to address the failures identified and to prevent similar situations occurring again.
- In this case the landlord has evidenced this learning, stating that:
- It had contacted the managers of its customer experience team and asked that they reminded all their staff of the importance of responding to emails in a timely manner and ensuring repair orders are raised within its prescribed timescales.
- Addressed the delays that occurred in the quote process with its contractor and the relevant staff involved.
- Reviewed its systems and processes to be able to better track and remedy repairs and more complex cases such as this, where several stakeholders or contractors or surveyors may have been involved. This included ensuring that regular updates were provided to the respective parties.
- Having considered all the available evidence and given that the landlord has acknowledged its failures, offered a proportionate level of compensation, and evidenced its learning from the complaint, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to this element of the complaint.
Response to a request for insurance details in relation to the internal damage to the resident’s property as a result of the leak from the flat above.
- The initial request for insurance information was made by the representative on 15 February 2020. This Service has seen no evidence of any request being made prior to this date.
- Under Section 30A and paragraph 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 there is a legal right for leaseholders to request information about the insurance policy from the landlord. Leaseholders are also entitled to ask to inspect and take copies of the policy. Landlords would be expected to provide the information requested within 21 days.
- The landlord in this case would therefore have been expected to have provided the insurance information, requested on 15 February 2020, by 7 March 2020.
- It has not been disputed that there was a delay in providing this information. However, it is unclear when this was provided by the landlord.
- This is because in its stage 1 response of 31 December 2020, the landlord said that it had not responded to the request for an insurance claim form. However, in an email of 21 April 2020, the representative advised the resident that they had ‘been in touch with the insurance company who (were) unable to discuss a claim with (them)’ as the insurance company could only discuss a claim with the representative if they had the resident’s written consent for them to do so.
- Nevertheless, given that in its stage 1 response on 31 December 2020 the landlord acknowledged that the insurance information had not been provided, it was appropriate for it to recognise this failure and to offer compensation to the resident to put it right. It is noted that there were no further requests for insurance information from the representative after this date.
- At the time of its stage 1 response, in which the landlord said that it had not provided this information, more than 10 months had passed since the request had been made. It is therefore the view of this service that the level of compensation offered in relation to this element of the complaint was not proportionate to the length of the delay.
- Given the landlord did not provide a breakdown of the £200 compensation, as explained previously, this has been assumed to have been £100 for both the repair failings and the failings in this case.
- As a result, a finding of service failure has been made regarding this element of the complaint. To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a further £150, bringing the total payable for this element of the complaint to £250.
- In addition to being fair and putting things right, the Ombudsman also expects landlords to show that they have learnt from complaints made. In this case the landlord did so, confirming that it had asked its housing management service to take the specific details of the resident’s complaint into account as part of its ongoing review, into how to improve communication with leaseholders and their agents, regarding insurance issues.
- The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord as a member of the Scheme, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers.
- However, we can consider the representatives claim that the delay in the landlord providing the requested insurance details meant that they were not able to submit a claim to the insurer until more than 90 days after the leak occurred. The representative’s claim that the delay in the repairs being completed also delayed the submission of the insurance claim has been considered previously in this report.
- The leak occurred on 8 October 2019 and therefore by the time the representative contacted the landlord to request information regarding insurance on 15 February 2020, more than 90 days had already passed.
- It has been acknowledged that there was an evident failure by the landlord in providing the information requested on 15 February 2020. However, as the request for the insurance information was not made until after the 90 days had passed, it would not be reasonable for this Service to determine that the landlord’s failure to provide the insurance information was responsible in the claim not being made within the required timeframe.
- It was also reasonable for the landlord, having not been advised otherwise, to have assumed that the resident would have considered the need to make an insurance claim for the damage at the time it occurred. It was also reasonable for the landlord, again not having been advised otherwise, to have assumed that the resident had access to the insurance details for her property given this had previously been emailed to her on 13 January 2016.
Handling of the associated complaint
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy which states that it will log and acknowledge both initial complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It will then provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged, and to all stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. Where the landlord requires more time to investigate the issues and provide a response, an email will be sent to the resident explaining the reason for the extension and providing a new deadline date which will not exceed a further 10 working days.
- The landlord logged the representative’s email of 26 November 2020 as a formal complaint. Having done so it would have been expected to have acknowledged the complaint by 3 December 2020, within 5 working days. It would then have been expected to have provided its stage 1 response by 17 December 2020, within a further 10 working days.
- This Service has seen no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint within the 5 working days set out in its complaints policy. It is acknowledged that the stage 1 response was not issued until 31 December 2020. However, taking into account the Christmas and New Year break, and that a Covid lockdown was in place at that time, it would not be reasonable to determine this relatively short delay as a failure on the landlord’s part.
- The representative escalated the complaint on 8 February 2021. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord would have been expected to have acknowledged this within 5 working days, by 15 February 2021. It would then have been expected to have provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement, by 15 March 2021.
- In this case the landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. However, it did not issue its stage 2 response until 30 March 2022, over a year later. This was an excessive delay that would have understandably caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- It has been noted that there was a short delay in the resident providing the landlord with their authority for the representative to act on their behalf. However, this only represented a delay of 34 working days: the landlord’s complaint investigator requesting this on 12 March 2021 and the resident confirming her consent for the representative to act on her behalf on 29 April 2021.
- It is unclear why the landlord was only requesting the resident’s authority at this point, as it had already been corresponding with her representative about the repair, insurance and at stage 1. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to review its handling of the authorisation of the representative in this case and how it was that it was only when the complaint was escalated that the representative’s authority to act on her behalf was questioned.
- It is also noted that in their correspondence of 12 March 2021 the landlord’s complaint investigator included a list of questions regarding the complaint. The timeline regarding the representative’s response to these questions is unclear. This is because:
- The landlord’s complaint investigator emailed the representative on 29 April 2021. In their email the complaint investigator said that they had contacted the representative by telephone on 23 March 2021 and that the representative had advised that their legal team were preparing a response, which they would provide in due course.
- However, on 18 February 2022, the representative emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive, enclosing a copy of a letter dated 18 March 2021, responding to the questions raised by the complaints investigator, which predated their conversation with the complaint investigator on 23 March 2021.
- In its final response the landlord acknowledged the delay in its response, and that its complaints investigator did not handle their communication with the resident nor her representative as effectively as they should have done. The landlord also acknowledged it had no record of the representative’s letter dated 18 March 2021 having been received at that time. It also reflected on the date of this correspondence being inconsistent with what the representative told the complaints investigator on 23 March 2021, and the complaints investigator’s email dated 29 April 2021, as referred to above.
- In its final response the landlord recognised and apologised for its failure to provide its stage 2 response within a reasonable period and its communication failures following the resident’s escalation request.
- As the landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had ‘already accepted’ its failures with regards to its response to the leak and recognised no further failures with regards to the insurance claim, it is reasonable to assume that the additional £500 offered at stage 2 was for its acknowledged failures with regards to its overall handling of the escalated complaint.
- As that was the case, this Service is satisfied that the £500 compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the level of failure with regards to this element of the complaint.
- However, as the landlord failed to evidence any learning with regards to its handling of the resident’s escalation request, a finding of service failure has been made. To put this right the landlord has been ordered to consider what learning it can take from complaints to address the failures identified and to prevent similar situations occurring again. The landlord is to provide the outcome to this Service.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its response to the report of a leak into the resident’s property from the property above.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to a request for insurance details in relation to the internal damage to the resident’s property as a result of the leak from the flat above.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- That within 28 calendar days of this report the landlord is to:
- Pay the resident a total of £750, this being made up of:
- £250 for its failures with regards to its response to the request for insurance details in relation to the internal damage to the resident’s property as a result of the leak from the flat above. This is inclusive of the £100 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
- The £500 offered in its stage 2 response in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.
- Consider what learning it can take from complaints to address the failures identified and to prevent similar situations occurring again. The landlord is to provide the outcome to this Service.
- Confirm compliance with the above orders.
- Pay the resident a total of £750, this being made up of:
Recommendation
- If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £2,100 offered in respect of its response to the report of a leak into the resident’s property from the property above. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on it doing so.