London Borough of Ealing (202334337)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334337

London Borough of Ealing

23 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Communal light repairs.
2. Gutter repairs.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord, a council, since March 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette on the first and second floors of a 2-storey building.
In January and February 2023 the resident reported the gutters on the building were blocked. The landlord noted it attended in January 2023 only.
In March, May and August 2023 the resident reported 4 communal lights on the balcony, leading to her front door, were not working. The landlord raised works orders on each occasion, but there is no record it attended.
The resident made a complaint on 10 September 2023. She said:
1. The landlord had attended regarding the blocked gutters but not completed any works. They were blocked with vegetation and attracting pests. She said this was causing damage to her property, including damp and mould due to water build up. At times the water would burst down the building and this had caused one of her window panes to crack.
2. She had reported communal lights not working on numerous occasions. Jobs had been raised but no works completed.
3. She asked for an apology, all repairs to be completed, the broken window pane to be replaced and for compensation.
On 25 September 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. This said it was having contractual issues which meant there was a backlog of roof repairs. It confirmed it was chasing up the communal lighting repair. It said the complaint was upheld and apologised for the time taken to resolve matters, and for the inconvenience caused.
The landlord did a damp and mould inspection on 6 October 2023. It noted there was mould in the bathroom and one of the bedrooms. It said multiple gutters were blocked with plants growing in them. This had led to water overflowing on to the walls, which had caused the mould in the bedroom. It said the gutters needed to be cleared, and scaffolding would be required.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 21 October 2023. She said no repairs had been completed and things were getting worse. She asked for the same outcome as requested at stage 1, and a copy of the damp and mould inspection report.
On 28 November 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. This said it would attend that month for the communal light repair and a works order had been raised to clear the gutters. It advised the resident would need to claim on the building’s insurance for the cracked bathroom window pane and provided details of how to do this. It offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble she had taken to pursue these matters.
The same day the landlord completed the communal lighting repair.
The following month the resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she had reported blocked gutters for almost a year but no repairs had been carried out.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reported her and her son’s health have been negatively affected by these matters. We do not doubt the resident, but we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her family’s ill-health. She can seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she believes their health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. We have, however, considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of communal light repairs

The landlord is responsible for communal light repairs in line with the guidance on its website. This says it is responsible for repairs to communal lighting.
There is no record the landlord attended in response to the resident’s reports of 30 March, 26 May or 14 August 2023. It was only in response to the resident’s complaint, and subsequent escalation request, that it progressed this matter and completed the repair, on 28 November 2023. This was 8 months after the resident first reported this.
It was reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a routine repair, which its repairs policy at the time said it would complete within 28 days. The landlord did not comply with this and exceeded the target timescale by over 200 days. This was an extended and unreasonable delay which amounts to maladministration. This delay meant the resident had to come and go from her property without adequate lighting, which was worrying for her.
During the period of delay, there is no record of any updates or contact by the landlord to the resident, apart from its response to her complaint. During the 8 month period, the resident raised this issue on at least 5 occasions, including as part of her formal complaint. Despite multiple works orders being raised, little or no action was taken in response to the majority of these contacts.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this issue. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for this and 1 other issue, but did not specify distinct amounts for each. Therefore, we have split the offer in half for each of the issues, meaning the landlord offered £50 for its handling of this matter. Considering the length of the delay and the lack of communication, this amount is not proportionate to the failings identified or to address the detriment to the resident. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance as it is reflective of a failure that adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact.

Handling of gutter repairs

The landlord is responsible for gutter repairs in line with its repairs handbook. This says it will keep the structure, common parts and outside of leaseholder flats in good repair, which includes gutters.
The resident first reported the gutters were blocked on 3 January 2023. The landlord attended later that month and noted it was unable to access the roof, so further works were required. As the landlord knew the height of the building, it should have been aware scaffolding was needed to complete the job.
However, it was sensible for the landlord to visit to confirm the location of the blocked gutters, before arranging for scaffolding to be put up. Therefore, it was reasonable that no works were carried out at the initial visit on 27 January 2023. While reasonable, the landlord should have told the resident this, so she knew what the outcome would be. Its failure to do so meant her expectations were raised, and she was left feeling let down when no works were completed that day. This amounts to maladministration.
Despite the landlord noting it sent a quote for the required works following its visit on 27 January 2023; there is no evidence any works were progressed. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
The resident re-reported the blocked gutters in February 2023 and as part of her formal complaints in September and October 2023. In addition, a member of landlord staff reported this in January 2024. Despite multiple works orders being raised and the landlord committing that works would be completed as part of its response to the complaint, we have seen no evidence of any works being carried out to clear the gutters. The resident has confirmed these were cleared in around February 2025, more than 2 years after her first report.
The landlord’s repairs handbook says it will complete gutter repairs in 15 days. In this case, considering the landlord needed scaffolding to complete the repair, it was reasonable that this may take slightly longer than 15 days to complete. The landlord said in the stage 1 response that contractual issues had led to a backlog of roof repairs. In some circumstances, delays are unavoidable and not always the fault of the landlord.
In this case, while some of the delay may not have been attributable to the landlord due to the contractual issues, this was not the reason for the full extent of the delay. The landlord confirmed in the stage 2 response that a works order had been raised, which indicated the contractual issues were no longer ongoing from at least November 2023. As the gutters were not cleared for another 15 months, this was a significant and unreasonable delay that far exceeded its committed response time of 15 days. This amounts to maladministration.
Where there are unavoidable delays, the landlord should proactively update residents so they are aware of what is happening and feel reassured that it has not forgotten about the issue. The landlord did not do that in this case and it was only after the resident complained that it told her the reason for the delay. This amounts to maladministration and caused her to lose trust in the landlord.
The resident asked why multiple works orders were raised, but no works completed. The landlord explained that, while it was changing contractors, multiple orders were logged but had since been closed or cancelled. This was a reasonable explanation. However, the landlord should have done more to adequately manage this repair to ensure it was progressed as quickly as possible once the contractual issues were resolved. This should have included regular updates to the resident and, had it done so, it could have avoided her uncertainty and dissatisfaction that led to the complaint.
The resident said the blocked gutters had caused damp and mould in the property. As she is a leaseholder, she is responsible for keeping the internal parts of the property in good and substantial repair and condition, in line with the terms of her lease agreement. However, as she had reported this was caused by the blocked gutters, which was the landlord’s responsibility to repair, it was sensible that it completed a damp and mould inspection.
The landlord completed the inspection on 6 October 2023 and confirmed the cause of the damp and mould was the blocked gutters. It noted these needed to be cleared, but there is no evidence action was taken to progress this. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue sooner and left the resident feeling let down. This amounts to maladministration.
This was particularly concerning as the resident told the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that the mould had caused her son to develop breathing problems. The landlord said it had added the repair to a priority list in its stage 1 response, but the repair was not completed for a further 16 months, which indicates it did not prioritise it. This meant the resident and her son were left living in a property with worsening damp and mould for more than 2 years. This caused her to lose faith in the landlord and was understandably distressing for her.
The resident asked for a copy of the damp and mould inspection report, but said the landlord declined to provide this. Inspection reports are internal documents and so it is reasonable that the landlord declined to share it. However, it is good practice for landlords to confirm the outcome of inspections in writing. It did not do that in this case, which left the resident feeling that it was not being transparent with her.
When the resident reported the blocked gutters in January and February 2023, she said they were attracting pests. She has subsequently told us that, due to the delays in the gutters being cleared, the infestation got worse. She explained that, despite the gutters being cleared in 2025, the landlord has not treated for pests, so this is an ongoing issue that has spread to the communal loft space.
We cannot say whether the pest issue was caused by the blocked gutters, but as the resident has reported this is in a communal area, the landlord’s website confirms it is responsible for this. Therefore, it should look into this and take action to resolve it.
The landlord’s records show it attended on 8 May 2025, following a report from the resident. However, it noted it was unable to access the loft space so could not take action. This works order was completed the same day, but there is no record of any follow on works raised, and the resident said she was told by the operative that it was unlikely the landlord would do anything about it. This is a concern, as it means the resident, and other occupants of the block, have been left with an untreated pest infestation in communal areas.
We have made an order for the landlord to visit the block to investigate the pest infestation in communal areas (including the loft space), treat for this and identify any proofing works required. Following this, the landlord must write to the resident, and other households in the block, confirming the outcome and any follow on works it will complete, with associated timescales.
The resident asked for compensation for damage to her property and personal items. She said the damage was a result of the damp and mould caused by the blocked gutters, and the delay in these being cleared. She confirmed this included decoration and flooring, as well as clothing and furniture. We are unable to make a finding in respect of liability, as this needs to be assessed via a public liability insurance claim. What we have considered is how the landlord responded to this request and whether its response was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident it was not its responsibility to reimburse her for damage to her personal possessions. While this is correct in respect of damage caused due to unforeseen circumstances, such as fire or flood; this is incorrect where damage is a result of a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said where a complaint involved any potential for an insurance claim as a result of loss, damage, injury or suffering, the insurance section should be consulted immediately. As the landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this repair at stage 1 and 2, it should have consulted its insurance section and considered the resident’s request for compensation. This could have been done internally or via a claim to its public liability insurer. It did not do this, which was a failure that amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling it did not want to accept responsibility for its errors.
We have made an order for the landlord to confirm in writing whether it will assess the resident’s claim for compensation and, if so, what information it needs from her, and/or provide her with details of its public liability insurer, so she can make a claim.
Similarly, the resident told the landlord the blocked gutters caused her bathroom window to crack and damage the extractor fan. We cannot make a determination on whether the blocked gutters caused this, but have assessed how the landlord responded.
The landlord told the resident she needed to claim for this on the buildings insurance and pay the excess. This was inappropriate as she said the damage was caused as a result of the delayed repair to the gutters. Again, as the landlord accepted there had been delays in clearing the gutters, it should have referred the matter to its insurance team for consideration under its public liability insurance. Its failure to do so was unreasonable and not in line with its complaints policy at the time. This amounts to maladministration.
The resident has told us the window and extractor fan are still broken. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to refer this matter to its insurance team for consideration under its public liability insurance. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of this and what, if any action she needs to take or information she needs to submit to make a claim.
The resident asked the landlord to install additional insulation and damp proofing on the external walls of the building. As the damp and mould was caused by blocked gutters, it was reasonable that the landlord’s plan to resolve this was to clear the gutters. We have determined that it was delayed in doing so, which exacerbated the damp and mould. However, as the gutters have now been cleared, it is not necessary to complete additional works to damp proof the property, as the underlying cause has been addressed. Any internal damage caused by the damp and mould, should be assessed as part of a public liability insurance claim, as set out above.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this issue. It apologised (at stage 1 only) and offered £50 compensation (half of the total £100 offered). Considering the extent of the failures identified, including the long delay and lack of communication, as well as the detriment to the resident, the redress offered is insufficient. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £600 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance, as it reflects there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. This is due to significant failures and the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would respond to both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 11 working days, which was within the target timescale set out in its policy. It responded to the stage 2 complaint in 27 working days. This was over the target timescale and it failed to acknowledge this within the response. This amounts to maladministration.
It was positive that the landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of both repairs as part of the stage 1 and 2 responses, but the responses were vague and lacked detail. This meant it was not clear to the resident, or us, why the failures had occurred. This was unfair and made the resident feel the landlord was not being honest.
The landlord gave no explanation for why the communal light repair was delayed in either the stage 1 or 2 responses. This suggests the investigation was not done thoroughly, which indicates poor complaint handling. This was disappointing for the resident and amounts to maladministration.
Similarly, while the landlord gave an explanation for the delay to the gutter repair in the stage 1 response, it did not give any additional detail at stage 2. As this repair was further delayed by more than a year after the stage 2 response, the complaint process had no impact on putting things right, in contravention of our Dispute Resolution Principles. This amounts to maladministration and was a failure in the fundamental purpose of the landlord’s complaints process, as it missed opportunities to resolve matters sooner for the resident. Further, the landlord did not identify any learning as a result of either the stage 1 or 2 complaints. This also contravenes our Dispute Resolution Principle of learning from outcomes.
We have made an order for the landlord to review the complaint and identify the reasons the failures occurred and any learning it can implement to prevent similar failures happening again. A written report must be sent to the resident and us with the outcome, including a timescale for any identified actions to be completed. We have also made an order for the landlord to deliver training to all complaint handling staff on completing thorough investigations and preparing detailed responses. We will consider this order complied with if the landlord can show it has delivered training of this nature within the last 12 months.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Not only did it fail to follow its policy, it did not adhere to our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Therefore, we have also made orders for it to apologise to the resident and pay her £150 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Communal light repairs.
2. Gutter repairs.
3. The associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £1,000 compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 for its handling of communal light repairs (inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so already).
  2. £600 for its handling of gutter repairs (inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so already).
  3. £150 for its complaint handling.
2. Visited the block to investigate the pest infestation in communal areas (including the loft space), treat for this and identify any proofing works required. Following this, the landlord to write to the resident, and other households in the block, confirming the outcome of this and any follow on works it will complete with a timescale for these to be completed.
3. Confirmed in writing whether it will assess the resident’s claim for compensation for damage to her property and personal items. If so, what information it needs from her, and/ or provide her with details of its public liability insurer, so she can make a claim.
4. Referred the cracked bathroom window and extractor fan to its insurance team for consideration under its public liability insurance. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of this and what, if any action she needs to take or information she needs to submit to make a claim.
5. Apologised to the resident for its handling of gutter repairs.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Reviewed the resident’s complaint and identified the reasons the failures occurred and any learning it can implement to prevent similar failures happening again. A written report to be sent to the resident and us with the outcome, including a timescale for any actions to be completed.
2. Delivered training to all complaint handling staff on completing thorough investigations and preparing detailed responses. We will consider this order complied with if the landlord can show it has delivered training of this nature within the last 12 months.