London Borough of Enfield (202329814)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329814

London Borough of Enfield

20 March 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for renovation works at her former property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak at her current property.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She began a new tenancy at a different property on 10 July 2023. The resident’s representative raised the complaint on her behalf. We have referred to both the resident and her representative as “the resident” in this report.
The landlord sent a letter to residents dated 3 May 2023. It decided to decommission the building containing the resident’s former property following a consultation. It said this was due to the level, disruption, and cost of works needed to the building. All tenants had priority for a housing transfer and were eligible for statutory Home Loss and a Disturbance payment. The landlord explained that secure tenants who provided evidence of permitted work they had done in their homes, at their own expense, could claim reasonable compensation.
The resident’s new tenancy began on 10 July 2023. On 11 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and provided images of the invoices and receipts for the renovation work at the former property. The landlord said it would send these to a manager for a response.
The landlord raised a repair on 11 September 2023 following the resident’s reports of a leak from under her sink, and an uncontainable leak that began the previous night. It initially raised this as a routine repair before raising an emergency repair. An operative attended on the same day and resolved a leak under a basin but identified that a radiator pipe may have burst and the boiler pressure had dropped. The resident reported that the leak was pouring down the walls and affecting the electrics.
Another engineer attended on 12 September 2023. They found that a screw in a floorboard had pierced a pipe, causing the leak. They temporarily resolved the leak and noted that they needed to complete further work to repair the pipe, refix the floorboard and repair all damage.
The resident raised a complaint on 14 September 2023 and explained the following:
1. She completed renovations in her former property and then found out a week later that the landlord intended to decommission the building. She asked staff members whether the landlord would reimburse her for the work. They confirmed she would. She kept all receipts and emailed these to 2 staff members, but did not get a response for over a month.
2. She did not feel the landlord had checked that her new property was safe before she moved in. On 10 September 2023, she reported a significant leak running through the electricity. A staff member initially said that the leak was not an emergency despite it affecting the toilet, living room, and kitchen. They eventually booked for someone to attend. She said she had been sitting in the dark for 4 days due to the affect on the electricity and that newly installed wallpaper and carpet was damaged.
3. She added that a plumber found that a pin screwed into a water pipe had caused the flooding. She did not understand why the landlord had not checked this before handing over the property. She was unhappy that she needed to beg a staff member initially to treat the matter as an emergency.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 26 September 2023, the landlord said:
1. It recognised that the works to the resident’s new home were not completed to a high level. It raised an urgent job to attend on 29 September 2023 to refix the floorboards taken up due to the leak.
2. It confirmed that it was not responsible for insuring the contents of the property. It said she should contact her home contents insurance provider in the first instance. If she did not have home contents insurance, it said she could contact its insurance team.
3. It acknowledged that she completed works to her former property and said it had received the receipts she provided. It appreciated that some of the work and costs may have been before it sent the initial consultation letter on 22 February 2023 regarding the possibility of decommissioning the property. To consider the compensation figure, it needed her to provide proof of her communication requesting permission for the work, and before and after photos to ascertain the bathroom condition before the work.
The landlord’s repair records show that it refixed the floorboard on 29 September 2023
The resident initially responded on 11 October 2023. She said that the landlord had told her that she did not need permission unless she completed major works. She said the works were not major, and involved replacing the flooring, painting, plastering and installing wall panels. She did not have pictures from before and after the work. She added that she needed to remove the newly laid laminate when she moved – as instructed by her housing officer. She asked the landlord to visit the property to see the condition of the work done as staff had complimented the bathroom. She sent the email again on 19 October 2023 and noted that this was the third time she had sent this due to a lack of response.
In its further response on 20 October 2023, the landlord said:
1. It inspected her former property on 12 October 2023. It found that the toilet door was boarded and the wall between the bathroom and toilet was removed, creating one room instead of two. Plastic cladding was on the walls, the sink and pedestal were removed, the pipework was re-run in plastic in the soil stack pipe, the laminated flooring was removed and there were no pictures to confirm the bathroom’s condition before the work. It noted that some paintwork had begun but was not complete.
2. It partially upheld the complaint but said it would not offer compensation for the work she completed. It said that the renovation works included removing a partition wall between the toilet and bathroom. She fitted a whole new bathroom, and the layout changed. She also accessed the soil stack pipe which breached the integrity of the pipework. It did not consider the work minor. It said it held no record of her requesting permission for the work. These works did not come under the resident’s Right to Improve, and it would not reimburse her.
3. It said that some of the receipts included invoices from the builder and the items purchased were in a different name. It would not compensate for builder’s fees and would not reimburse costs for items that were not purchased in her name. It also noted that one of the receipts for £350 was for a “black basin and bath shower”. The installations in the property were white. It could not determine whether these items related to the work.
4. It confirmed that each resident received a home loss and disturbance allowance of up to £10,300 but recognised that money could not overshadow the upheaval experienced. It recognised the length of time it took to respond to her query and offered £250 compensation.
5. It said that if she remained dissatisfied, she could ask it to review the complaint at the final stage of its complaints process. It has confirmed that this was a template error, and this was its final complaint response.
The resident referred her complaint to us for investigation. She wanted the landlord to reimburse the costs associated with the renovation works at her former property. She also wanted compensation for the landlord’s handling of the leak at her new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to damage to decorations and furnishings following the leak at her current property. Although we can consider the impact of the leak on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability or issue a binding decision about the award of damages. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s tenancy agreement and Tenant Home User Guide set out conditions for when a resident wishes to complete improvements or alterations to their property. It says:
1. Tenants must obtain its written permission before completing any alterations, improvements or structural work to the property.
2. There are certain improvements for which a secure tenant could claim compensation when they leave the property under the Right to Improve Scheme. The tenant must seek the landlord’s written permission before completing any works under the Right to Improve scheme.
3. Tenants must seek the landlord’s written permission to install laminate flooring and provide it with a specification of the proposed work prior to installation.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs to bathrooms, including replacing the floor coverings and repairing or replacing pipes, baths, sinks, toilets and showers. It is also responsible for repairs to other pipes and floors, but not floor coverings. It completes critical repairs within 4 hours. It would complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. It then completes urgent and routine repairs within 5 and 30 days respectively.
The policy further confirms that residents need to gain the landlord’s consent prior to any improvement and alteration works. When considering a request, the landlord would consider potential health and safety risks and whether the work involves structural alterations. It would respond to requests for permission within 28 working days and explain the reason for the outcome.

The resident’s request for compensation for renovation works

The landlord has recognised that there was a delay in it addressing the resident’s request for the reimbursement of the renovation costs she completed at her former property and offered £250 compensation. It would not compensate her for the renovation work as she did not seek its permission before completing major works.
We have seen evidence of emails the resident sent to the landlord on 11 July 2023 providing 9 images of receipts and invoices. It is evident that the landlord did not respond fully to the resident’s request until its complaint response on 20 October 2023, over 3 months later. Overall, its offer of £250 compensation is proportionate in view of the delay in addressing her request. Our remedies guidance states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate where there has been service failure which had an impact but may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint.
The resident remains dissatisfied that the landlord would not compensate her for the renovation works she completed prior to being aware that it would be decommissioning the property. We note that many of the receipts she provided evidence of are dated prior to the landlord’s letter notifying residents of its consultation on 21 February 2023. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging that some of the costs were likely to have been incurred before this.
It is important to note that the right to compensation at the end of a tenancy for improvements is subject to certain qualifying criteria and regulations. Specifically, this only applies to secure tenants, to eligible improvements, and the landlord must have granted its permission for the improvement. The upper limit for any potential compensation is £3,000 in line with Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Compensation for Improvements) Regulations.
In her communication, the resident specified that the landlord told her she did not need its permission to complete minor works. She maintained that the works were not major and consisted of replacing the flooring (which she later needed to remove), painting, plastering, and installing wall panels.
The landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the property on 12 October 2023 in the absence of before and after photos to determine the bathroom condition. It concluded that the work was not minor as the resident had boarded a door, removed a wall separating the toilet from the main bathroom, installed a new bathroom, and re-run pipework which impacted the soil stack pipe running through the properties.
We do not have clear evidence to show that the toilet and bathroom were previously 2 separate rooms. However, we note that the receipts the resident provided included costs associated with a new bath, basin, pipework, and fittings as well as wall boards. This indicates that the resident installed a new bathroom and adjusted the pipework as well as completing work to the flooring and walls as suggested. Bathroom replacements are generally considered major works. The landlord’s decision that the work was “major”, and therefore needed its written permission, is reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s policies and tenant handbook specify that tenants must obtain its written permission before completing works under the right to improve scheme. There is a lack of documentary evidence to show that the landlord was aware of the works the resident intended to complete, or to show that it said she would not need permission to complete such work. We are unable to determine that the landlord had the opportunity to consider the works before she began them or gave its permission. It had no obligation to offer compensation for the work under the right to improve scheme.
The landlord acted reasonably by providing further reasoning as to why it was unable to compensate the resident. We have reviewed the receipts and invoices provided alongside the video taken during the landlord’s inspection on 12 October 2023.
In its response, the landlord mentioned that one of the receipts showed the purchase of a “black basin and bath shower”. It had found a white bath and basin in the property, and it was not able to determine which items were used in the property. Having searched the product listed, we note that this relates to black mixer taps or shower fittings and the other documents the resident provided listed a white bath and basin.
While the landlord’s comments on this element were inaccurate, it is noted that the works to the bathroom were not fully completed, and it remains unclear as to whether each element of the expenses listed in the receipts were used within the bathroom renovation. In addition, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to reimburse the cost of some items listed on the receipts, such as the purchase a rotary hammer and circular saw. Items such as internal doors are also not listed as eligible improvements.
In summary, the landlord offered a reasonable response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs for renovation works. It acted reasonably by acknowledging the inconvenience the delay in addressing her request may have caused and its offer of £250 in view of the delay is reasonable in the circumstances.
We have not seen evidence to demonstrate that the landlord was obliged to reimburse the resident for the costs associated with the renovation work and it acted reasonably by setting out its position. We have found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.

The resident reported a leak affecting the property on 11 September 2023. In her complaint on 14 September 2023, she raised concern that the landlord had not checked that the new property was safe to move into. She was dissatisfied with the staff member who dealt with her report of a leak. She said that she had to beg them to raise an emergency repair despite explaining that the water was affecting multiple rooms in the property and causing damage.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 26 September 2023, the landlord said that it did not complete the repairs to a high level. It raised an urgent repair to re-fix the floorboard that was taken up due to the leak. This took place on 29 September 2023. The resident is seeking compensation for the landlord’s handling of the repair.
The landlord did not adequately address this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It had the opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns about the staff member she had spoken to by listening to any relevant calls at the time. It should have addressed her concern that she needed to spend time asking for the matter to be addressed as an emergency.
We do not have specific evidence to confirm what happened on the call. However, it is evident from the landlord’s repair records that the work was first raised under its routine repair timescales of 30 calendar days at 11:34 am before being re-raised as an emergency at 2:38 pm, 3 hours later. The notes for the jobs indicate that she had reported water coming from an unknown source into the living room as well as a smaller leak from pipes under a sink. It would have been appropriate for this to have been handled under the landlord’s emergency timescales in the first instance given the unknown cause for the escape of water. The landlord’s failure to address her concern was likely to cause frustration.
The leak was made safe within 24 hours of the resident’s report, on 12 September 2023. This was within the landlord’s emergency timescales. We note that this required 2 visits as the operative who attended on 11 September 2023 identified a concealed leak but did not make this safe, meaning that the leak continued overnight.
The resident raised concern that the landlord had not adequately checked the property for leaks before allowing her to move in. While we appreciate her concern, we have not seen evidence to suggest that the leak was apparent before her report on 11 September 2023. The tenancy began on 10 July 2023 and the landlord’s repair records indicate that it completed a deep clean of the property on 9 August 2023. She reported the leak on 11 September 2023, around a month later. There is no evidence to confirm that the leak had been ongoing since the tenancy began or that the landlord had the opportunity to identify the issue sooner.
It is of concern that, despite the resident’s report (on 14 September 2023) that she had been “sitting in the dark” for 4 days as she had no electricity in the living room, the landlord did not raise any form of repair to check or reinstate the electricity supply. While we have not seen evidence to show that the resident pursued this concern, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have determined whether the electricity was safe once it had temporarily resolved the leak and we have not seen clear evidence to show it did so.
Following the temporary repair on 12 September 2023, the landlord raised follow-on work to repair the pipe, refix the floorboards and carpet, and repair all damage caused by the leak. While it completed work to refix the floorboard on 29 September 2023 and it is not clear that the resident raised further concerns, we have not seen evidence to demonstrate that it checked the property for damage that it may have been responsible for repairing.
It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm that the resident would need to contact either her contents insurer or its insurance team in relation to the damage to her carpet as it would not be obliged to consider claims for damage under its complaints process.
We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint. While it arranged an appointment to attend within its emergency timescales, it did not address the resident’s concern that she needed to reiterate to a staff member that it was an emergency or investigate her concerns. While it set out that the repairs were not done to a “high-level” in its complaint response, it failed to explain why, or address her concerns fully which was likely to cause inconvenience.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its response to the resident’s request for compensation for renovation works.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of a leak.

Orders

We order the landlord to complete the following actions within 4 weeks:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings outlined in this report.
2. Pay the resident an additional £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its response to her concerns related to the leak.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord pays the resident £250 as offered within its complaint responses if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress in relation to its response to her request to be compensated for renovation works was made on the basis that it paid this.
The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to this recommendation within 4 weeks.