London Borough of Hackney (202415136)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415136

London Borough of Hackney

22 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 response to the resident’s report of a leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 15 January 2018. The resident has depression, stress and anxiety.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat in a purpose built block with 5 floors constructed in 2017. The resident’s next door neighbour has complex needs and has a wet room installed in their property.
In October 2019 the landlord raised an “urgent” works order due to the resident’s “entire flat being affected with mould.” This was caused by a leak from the wet room in the neighbouring property. The resident was decanted while works were undertaken in both properties to resolve the leak and associated issues.
On 9 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak that was causing damp and mould. A works order was raised to inspect and report back. A further works order noted that the landlord was working in the neighbouring property at the time. It believed that the leak was coming from the tiles in the wet room.
On 8 November 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint as follows:
1. There was a “major leak” from the neighbouring property in 2019. The resident was decanted from November 2021 to March 2022 so that remedial works could take place.
2. On 9 October 2023 she could hear work taking place in the property next door. When she went round she was told the bathroom was leaking and was advised to report it to the landlord. She asked how this had happened again.
3. She requested a point of contact to liaise with because there had been no contact from the landlord since 13 October when it carried out a survey of her property. She also did not want to have to deal with different officers.
4. There were insects in the property which were created by damp and moist conditions. She had begun to see them “everywhere” including in the bedrooms. She had also seen “very large” silverfish on the ground floor leading her to believe there was an infestation in the whole building.
5. The landlord attended on 1 and 3 November to inspect both properties. It confirmed the leak was coming from next door. It said it could not carry out work in her property until the issue with her neighbour’s wet room was resolved.
6. She was using dehumidifiers to dry the walls and floors which would increase her electricity bills. She was also using the bathroom fan more often to get rid of the smell in the bathroom. The landlord compensated her for the increase in costs last time and she expected the same again. She asked it to confirm this would be paid.
7. She was feeling “nauseous and sick” from the smell of damp. She was concerned about the impact on her family’s health. She had depression and anxiety. After the last incident she was prescribed medication and attended counselling. Her mental health was being impacted again and she was concerned she could have a “mental breakdown.” She did not want to move to temporary accommodation again as she had a bad experience the last time.
In November 2023 it was confirmed that works could not go ahead in either property until the neighbour was decanted due to her complex needs.
On 12 January 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, the main points being:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response which was due to the amount of information and updates needed to be able to respond.
2. It had an outstanding order to investigate and renew the neighbour’s shower. It had requested its leaks hub team to investigate the properties above to determine if the leak might be coming from another source.
3. It also had an outstanding order to assess the resident’s hallway and bathroom partition walls on both sides. This also included the floor tiles in the hallway kitchen and bathroom. It would establish the source of the defects and forward the specification for follow on repairs.
4. Its surveyor attended on 13 October 2023 and advised that the issue may have been caused by a direct fault with the construction (design defect) of the property.
5. It suggested a temporary repair while final arrangements were “agreed and settled.” It could not guarantee success but it was “better than allowing the current floor failures and leak to continue.” Works had been agreed with the resident and it had designated a point of contact to liaise with her.
6. The cause of fault in the neighbouring property appeared to be weight bearing of a heavy wheelchair and possible collision with outer walls during use. It was looking to change the floating wall construction to a screed based one as this was the second time the floor had “failed.” This would be throughout the property as the flooring construction method was “proving problematic.”
7. It would also look to change the shower area size as water was escaping from the neighbouring shower which could exacerbate water drainage and potential flooding. The neighbour’s needs were complex and “this case now requires a different approach to make this suitable and watertight moving forward.” It also intended to look at drainage to see if this could be plumbed in without the need for a pump which could block easily given her neighbour’s needs which could cause flooding.
8. It was considering strengthening the wall construction as the current style was not sufficient. It would then “fully tank out” the room to make it watertight. It hoped this would leave the room “sealed up and watertight as much as possible.” The situation was not the neighbour’s or landlord’s fault, it was a “complex solution for a complex need.”
9. It attended the neighbour’s property on 10 January 2024 to determine the extent of work required. Works would take 3 weeks during which time her neighbour would be decanted. This would be booked “as soon as possible.” Once work was completed and the resident’s property dried out it would carry out repairs and decoration work.
10. The infestation needed to be addressed by the pest control team for which it provided contact details. It had emailed the temporary accommodation team for further advice about housing options. It advised the resident that she could also contact its housing department to discuss her housing situation for which it also provided contact details.
11. It gave the contact details of the resident’s designated points of contact in the repairs team.
12. It advised the resident to contact her content insurer to cover the cost of damage to her belongings.
On 19 January 2024 the resident’s councilor contacted the landlord on her behalf. They advised that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
Following discussions about who would fund the neighbour’s decant the matter was concluded on 20 February 2024. By 20 March 2024 the neighbour was decanted and works were “well underway.”
Following a period of ill health the resident provided the landlord with details of her request to escalate to stage 2 on 24 May 2024, as follows:
1. She asked for a surveyor to inspect the property as it had been 8 months since its last visit. She wanted a clear understanding of the issue and an action plan.
2. She was living in “appalling” conditions and was concerned about another move.
3. She asked it to confirm what works had been carried out in her neighbour’s property and whether the leak had been fully resolved. She also requested that it set out its response to damp and mould.
4. The floor was damaged “again” for which she was seeking compensation.
5. As well as silverfish, she now had black flies in the whole property. She had contacted pest control but they advised her they would not deal with it. She was “annoyed” because she expected it to give correct information. The flies were making conditions “unpleasant” because they were everywhere including on food.
6. She requested compensation for increased electricity bills.
7. She asked to move permanently as she no longer wanted to live in a “damaged” property. She asked the landlord how it would deal with this and asked it to provide housing options advice, including information on mutual exchanges.
8. There had been no contact and she was not satisfied with its explanation of the problem provided at stage 1.
On 26 June 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. It apologised for the “upset” the leak had caused. It confirmed the leak was resolved on 12 March 2024 and acknowledged the delay in resolving the issue. Major renovations in the neighbouring property were completed on 31 May 2024.

It arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property and raise necessary repairs. It would ask the surveyor to decide if a permanent decant was needed. It would ensure the resident was kept informed and updated.
Following a discussion with the resident on 9 February 2024 the landlord emailed an update on 12 February 2024. It also requested an extension to reply to the complaint. On 20 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the leak was getting worse.
On 28 February 2024 the resident advised the landlord that she wanted to provide more information relating to her complaint.
On 8 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that work at the neighbouring property was due to start the following Monday. It asked if she wanted to forward additional points for it to consider during its investigation of her complaint. The resident advised that both she and her daughter were unwell and asked that it delay its response until they recovered. She also advised that Ramadan started the following week so she would contact it when she was able.
On 12 April 2024 the landlord checked in with the resident to ask if the leak had stopped. She replied to say she could not tell due to the damage already caused. It replied to say “major renovations” were in progress in the neighbouring property. It asked if the resident wanted it to provide a stage 2 response based on the information it had. The resident requested additional time. On 24 May 2024 the resident submitted a list of additional points.
It had arranged for its surveyor to attend the resident’s property the next day. The surveyor would advise if a decant was necessary and what work was needed. They would also report back on the pest infestation issue and damp and mould. It would then contact the resident to provide an update.
It had asked its insurer to send the resident a claim form so she could claim on its insurance for damages to her flooring and carpets.
It asked the resident to provide bills as evidence of increased electricity costs so it could consider her request further.
It had asked housing to contact the resident about her request to transfer to another property and to discuss housing options.
The resident had first reported the water ingress on 9 October 2023. The leak was traced and remedied on 12 March 2024. It offered £1310 compensation comprised of:
1. £1000 for the “level of fault.”
2. £220 for the avoidable delay.
3. £90 for its delayed stage 1 complaint response.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 27 June 2024 the landlord carried out a survey of the resident’s property. It noted that the bedroom wall adjacent to the wetroom was “supposed to be fixed” but was again showing signs of damp.
On 17 July 2024 the resident emailed us to say the landlord had failed “yet again.” It had offered compensation before starting works to her property. She could not accept it as this was a repeat repair that was supposed to be remedied the first time. The complaint became one we can investigate on 8 January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s responsibilities, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s response to our damp and mould recommendations in our spotlight report says that it will:
1. Inspect reports of damp and mould within 5 working days of them being reported.
2. Risk assess new inspections of damp and mould to take account of the severity, proportion of property affected, and the household occupancy, including any risk factors such as the number of occupants in the home, and the age and health of the residents. This will enable a risk based approach to the prioritisation of the completion of works and actions, and decision making regarding the need to arrange suitable alternative accommodation where necessary.
Its Corporate Complaints Policy (complaints policy) states that:
1. It will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days.
2. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
3. Where a stage 2 investigation will benefit from a ‘site visit’ where there is something physical to see, such as disrepair, this will be considered.
Its Complaints Compensation Guidance (compensation guidance) states that:
1. It is committed to our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
2. It will consider making payments of:
  1. £600 to £1000 where there has been a significant emotional and/or physical impact on the resident.
  2. £1000 and above where there was a severe long term impact on the resident. This includes failure to deal with a resident’s reports of damp, mould and ongoing leaks over a significant period causing damage to property, loss of amenity and health implications.
3. If a liability claim needs to be made against it this should be dealt with by its insurance section and the complainant should be signposted accordingly.
It will consider offering compensation for a quantifiable financial loss where there has been actual evidenced financial loss incurred as a direct result of its fault or failure to provide a service.
It is usually a resident’s responsibility to insure the contents of their home. If a liability claim needs to be made against it the resident should be signposted to its insurance section.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.

On 9 October 2023 the landlord raised 2 works orders. The first was for a previous leak which was causing damp and mould “throughout” the property. A request was made for the property to be inspected. The second related to a leak that was caused by works being undertaken in the wet room of the neighbouring property. The order requested that all tiles be cut out and renewed.
An internal email dated 26 October 2023 set out a call from the resident when she had confirmed that a survey of her property had been carried out. We have not seen a copy of the report from the survey which is a record keeping failure. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it risk assessed the inspection in line with its damp and mould response. During the call the resident said she had not heard anything else and requested an update.
There is no evidence that the landlord did so, causing time and trouble to the resident who called again to chase. The landlord’s internal email of 6 November 2023 said that during the call the resident reported that the leak had become worse and an urgent response was required. She reported that the silverfish infestation had got worse and her children were becoming sick from the damp and mould.
The landlord failed to contact the resident causing her further inconvenience when she raised a formal complaint on 8 November 2023 to try to resolve the substantive issue. She confirmed the landlord had inspected the property on 1 and 3 November 2023. It had confirmed the leak was coming from the neighbouring property. However it advised that remedial works could not be carried out in the property until the source of the leak was resolved. She set out the distress caused to her by the ongoing situation and requested a plan of action including details of a point of contact.
In her email to the landlord of 9 November 2023 the resident requested that it communicate with her in writing. In a further email sent the following day she said she was doing all the chasing “like last time” and wanted a long term solution.
An internal email dated 20 November 2023 confirmed that there was an outstanding order raised on 8 November 2023 to investigate and renew the shower in the neighbouring property. It noted it had also requested its leaks hub to investigate the properties above to determine if the leak was coming from another source. The reason for the delay is unclear therefore it was inappropriate. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the matter was referred to its leaks hub to undertake further investigation.
There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to keep her updated regarding progress. Her frustration was evident in her email to the landlord of 22 November 2023 in which she said she was “frustrated and angry with everything so far.”
On 24 November 2023 the landlord raised a works order to carry out wetroom renovations in the neighbouring property. An internal email of the same day confirmed it would need to decant the neighbour to carry out works.
The landlord’s email to the resident of 24 November 2023 advised that it had tried to attend her property the previous day but had not been able to gain access. It said the leak upstairs was being investigated and that it was arranging for her to be decanted. It would contact her again to provide a further update on this.
The email was inaccurate because the leak was from the adjacent property, not the property above. Furthermore, it was the neighbour who required decanting not the resident. The errors caused distress to the resident who replied on the same day to advise that there had been a communication issue. She identified that in addition to the errors above, it was her neighbour who declined to provide access when it visited, not her. This was confirmed in an internal email also sent on 24 November 2023.
The landlord replied to confirm the reference to the decant was in relation to the resident’s neighbour and not her. While the clarification was appropriate it failed to apologise, failed to identify the other errors and the distress caused. The email also confirmed that her neighbour was not allowing works to proceed.
An internal email sent on the same day confirmed the landlord intended to speak to the neighbour about carrying out investigation works to determine the cause which as yet had not been done. It also advised that works at either property could not progress until the neighbour had been decanted.
An internal email dated 7 December 2023 noted that works were on hold until arrangements were made for the decant. A further email of the same date set out the neighbour’s complex needs and the problems this presented regarding decant options. The landlord appropriately updated the resident on 11 December 2023.
It is acknowledged that the landlord had to approach the decant with a degree of sensitivity. However by now it had been over 2 months since the resident first raised concerns about the condition of the property and the impact it was having on her health. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed the ongoing risk to the resident which was a failure.
The resident expressed her disappointment in her email to the landlord on 15 December 2023 in which she said she was “appalled” by the lack of service. She said all the time the landlord was trying to access her neighbour’s property the leak was ongoing. She did not feel it had considered what she was “going through” or the conditions in which she was living. She asked it to assess the damage caused to her property which had got worse since the survey of 13 October 2023. She described black mould and rising water on the walls and floors. She said the smell of damp was so strong she had to open the windows to ventilate the property despite the cold weather.
On 28 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to provide contact details of the officers dealing with the repair. There is no evidence that the landlord considered her reasonable request to inspect the property. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. This was because it compounded the resident’s feeling that her needs were not being considered. It also demonstrated a lack of regard for her health and wellbeing.
Her distress was evident in an internal email dated 8 January 2024 which set out a call from the resident to the landlord that day. She was described as “upset and angry” and the email asked that someone contact her “urgently.” On 9 January 2024 an internal email was sent to request an urgent inspection be carried out of the resident’s property. While this was positive it came late in the process.
Due to the landlord’s inaction the resident was caused time and trouble when she contacted her local councillor to ask for their assistance to resolve the substantive issue. On 9 January 2024 the councillor emailed the landlord to ask that any works ensured there would be no repeat leaks.
An internal email dated 10 January 2024 confirmed that the landlord had gained access to the neighbour’s property the day before. It estimated works would take 3 weeks and that the neighbour would need a minimum of 1 weeks’ notice of a decant. It noted that the resident’s property would need to dry out before internal remedial works could be carried.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 12 January 2024 advised that a design defect had caused the leak. It set out in detail the works it would carry out in the neighbouring property. It appropriately set out the timescale of the works and said it aimed to decant her neighbour “as soon as possible” so that works could commence.
It said the pest infestation should be addressed by its pest control team and gave the resident its contact details. Having contacted the temporary accommodation team for advice itself it also asked her to contact its housing team to follow up. It was inappropriate of the landlord to put the onus on the resident to resolve the outstanding issues. As part of its complaint investigation it should have done all it could to support the resident to resolve the substantive issue.
Its response also signposted the resident to contact her own contents insurer to cover the cost of damage to her belongings. There was evidence to suggest that the damage to the resident’s possessions may have been due to the delay in fixing the leak. Therefore, its response was inappropriate because it should have referred her to its liability insurer in line with its compensation guidance.
An internal email dated 30 January 2024 showed that the landlord was trying to secure funding for the neighbour’s decant. It said it had to cancel a proposed start date for the works for 12 February 2024 due to the delay in arranging the decant. There is no evidence that the landlord provided updates to the resident to keep her informed of progress.
The distress caused by the lack of communication was evident in an internal email dated 9 February 2024. It set out 2 phone calls from the resident who said she had depression and could not keep chasing for updates. She also advised that she did not have household insurance. Later that day several internal emails were sent which demonstrated there was no agreement as to which agency and/or department would fund the neighbour’s decant.
On 10 February 2024 further internal emails identified the need to form a “plan of action.” Nearly 2 months after the resident requested a second property inspection the landlord queried whether this should be actioned. It is unclear why this had not already been carried out and the property risk assessed in line with its damp and mould response.
Another email sent on 10 February 2024 confirmed that the decant issue was “going round and round” and needed to be resolved. Another internal email dated 12 February 2024 noted that the landlord needed to “act fast due to the length of time this has been ongoing for.”
On 12 February 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was working out access issues. It missed an opportunity to respond to the resident’s request for a survey and failed to comment on the impact the situation had on her.
An internal email sent on 20 February 2024 confirmed that the repair team had agreed to fund the neighbour’s decant because it was “going around in circles” and “needed sorting.” This was positive but it came 4 months after the resident first reported the leak and its response was unreasonably delayed.
On 8 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that works in the neighbouring property were due to commence the following Monday. An internal email dated 20 March 2024 stated that works were “well underway.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 May 2024 to chase the survey of her property which 6 months later had still not been actioned. She said she was living in “appalling” conditions and needed to know its action plan. She was particularly concerned about having to move again while remedial works were carried out.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 26 June 2024 confirmed that the leak was remedied on 12 March 2024. It is unclear exactly what the source of the leak was and what works were carried out to ensure it stopped. It said it had made an appointment for the resident’s property to be inspected the following day. It would then raise the necessary works. A survey was carried out on 27 June.
It is unclear why, when the leak was resolved on 12 March 2024, the landlord had not already carried out the survey to be able to begin remedial works in the resident’s property as soon as possible. By that point 3 months had passed and therefore the delay as unreasonable.
It said it had asked its insurer to send the resident a claim form so she could claim on its insurance for damaged to flooring and carpets. This was positive however, as set out above it came late in the process. In an email to us dated 23 January 2025 the landlord said the resident had not submitted a claim.
The response acknowledged that there were delays in its response to stopping the water ingress. It was first reported on 9 October 2023 and was not resolved until 12 March 2024, 5 months later. It apologised and offered £1220 compensation.
While this was positive the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to consider the impact on the resident. It failed to:
1. Risk assess the situation and/or consider whether it might be appropriate to carry out interim works, such as a mould wash, while it resolved the leak.
2. Provide regular updates.
3. Acknowledge her the resident’s needs and the cumulative impact caused by the repeat leak. This compounded the distress and frustration caused.
It also failed to demonstrate that it was confident it had permanently resolved the leak. Its stage 1 complaint response of 12 January 2024 referred to works set out being a temporary solution. There is no evidence that it provided any information to the resident about whether it had agreed and settled “final arrangements.” Given that there had already been 2 leaks from the neighbouring property it would have been appropriate for it to have provided reassurance to the resident to set her mind at ease.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord failed to identify the failures identified in this report, as set out above. Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord is not considered proportionate to the failures identified by our investigation.
The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident £1750 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact. It is also in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance. It may deduct the £1220 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 8 November 2023. The landlord appropriately emailed the resident the following day to acknowledge receipt. It said it would respond within 10 working days.
On 24 November 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was in the process of writing its complaint response. However, it was waiting for further information regarding an appointment.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 15 December 2023 she said she was “appalled” by the lack of service regarding her complaint. The landlord’s email of 28 December 2023 apologised for the delay. While this was positive it failed to manage the resident’s expectations by advising when she could expect its response.
The distress and frustration caused to the resident was evident in an internal email dated 8 January 2024. The email said that during a call from the resident she was “very upset and angry” that she had not been updated properly about her complaint.
On 9 January 2024 the resident’s councillor emailed the landlord on her behalf. They asked that the complaint be escalated to stage 2 because its response to date had “fallen short of the mark.”
The resident followed this with her own email on 12 January 2024 in which she confirmed her request to escalate to stage 2. This was because she felt the landlord was “deliberately” delaying complaints process. She referred to an email from the landlord dated 9 January 2024 confirming it would escalate to stage 2 in the absence of a stage 1 response. She asked for written confirmation that her complaint had been escalated to stage 2. In an internal email sent on the same day the landlord said it had advised the resident it would complete the complaint at stage 1.
This Service does not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, also on 12 January 2024. This was 44 working days after the complaint was received and 34 working days out of time.
It was positive that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay. However, it failed to adhere to our dispute resolution principles and therefore its compensation guidance by trying to put things right. This was put right to some extent by its stage 2 complaint response of 26 June 2024 which offered £90 compensation for the delay.
Furthermore, the response failed to acknowledge the impact on the resident by considering her individual circumstances. This included her concerns about the impact on health, about having to be decanted again and the cumulative effect of a second leak.
The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint. It failed to provide a response to the resident’s request for compensation for the increased electricity costs associated with the dehumidifier. It is noted that its error was corrected to some extent in its stage 2 complaint response of 26 June 2024.
The Code also states that landlords must confirm in clear, plain language the decision on the complaint. However, there is no evidence that it did so which was inappropriate.
The resident’s councillor emailed the landlord on her behalf on 19 January 2024 to say the resident was “exasperated” with its response because her concerns were not fully addressed. She was particularly frustrated that issues that affected her personally had been overlooked. The email confirmed that the resident wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 January 2024 to acknowledge the complaint and said it would provide a response within 20 working days.
An internal email dated 9 February 2024 confirmed that the resident had called and asked to put her complaint on hold so she could provide additional information.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that responses should be issued within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully this should be agreed by both parties.
On 12 February 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to request an additional 15 working days to issue its complaint response. On 14 February 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the officer assigned to her complaint had unexpectedly had to take leave. Therefore, it would need an extension of 10 working days with the response due 1 March 2024. The landlord’s response was confusing because this was less than the 15 working day extension it had already requested.
On 28 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she needed more time to provide additional information to support her complaint. The landlord emailed the resident to check in on 8 March 2024. The resident replied to say both she and her daughter had been unwell and asked that the response be delayed until they recovered. The landlord appropriately sent an internal email on that day to ask to suspend the complaint.
On 19 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the complaint would be suspended for 20 working days. It advised it would write to her on 20 May 2024 to ask how she wished to proceed. There is no evidence that it did so however, on 24 May 2024 the resident set out the details of her stage 2 complaint.
On 29 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge receipt of her email and said it would reply within 20 working days. This was reasonable in the circumstances. On 7 June 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to request an extension of 15 working days. It is unclear why there would be a delay and the request to exceed 10 working days was therefore unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 June 2024. This was 22 working days from the resident’s email of 24 May 2024. While it was 2 working days over its target time it had requested an extension therefore its response was reasonable.
The stage 2 response also failed to set out the landlord’s decision on the complaint as required by the Code which was inappropriate. Its response again failed to acknowledge and address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays.
Given the nature of the substantive issue it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered visiting the property as part of its stage 2 investigation in line with its complaints policy. That it did not do so was a failure because it demonstrated a continued lack of consideration of the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord offered compensation for the delay at stage 1 however, it failed to identify the failures identified in this report. Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord is not considered proportionate to the failures identified by our investigation.
The landlord had been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £90 it offered if this has already been paid.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
  2. Set out the position with regards to whether it has carried out temporary or final works in the neighbouring property. If they are temporary it should provide an action plan for final works including timescales. If they are final it should set out what they are and how they safeguard against future leaks.
  3. Set out the current position with regards to remedial works to in the property.
2. Pay the resident £1900 compensation as follows:
  1. £1750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s report of a leak. The landlord may deduct the £1220 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £150 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £90 it offered if this has already been paid.
3. Contact the resident to establish if she requires any support in making an insurance claim if she has not already done so.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders above, also within 4 weeks.