London Borough of Waltham Forest (202405702)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405702

Waltham Forest Council

31 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 the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of an ongoing wastewater leak affecting his property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The complainant is a leaseholder of the property, which is a 2-bedroom, ground-floor flat within a block. He initially let the flat to a family with children. The property is now unoccupied. For ease and consistency, we refer to the leaseholder as ‘the resident’.
On 6 March 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. He said that:
1. He had been made aware by his tenants that there was an ongoing leak from a waste pipe running through a column in the bathroom of his flat.
2. His tenants had been reporting the problem to the landlord since mid-2022 and he was unhappy it was still unresolved.
3. There was “sewerage” visible and this had caused an infestation of flies.
4. He was concerned about the health of the disabled tenant and their 2 small children.

The resident asked for the landlord to repair the leak as a priority and to then assess the resulting damage to the property. He also asked for a full response to his complaint.

The landlord dealt with the complaint as a service request. It carried out several internal and external investigations between March and October 2023. The resident remained unhappy with the progress made and contacted the Ombudsman for assistance with his complaint. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns on 15 August 2024 and supplied a copy of his original complaint.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 2 September 2024, it acknowledged failings in its handling of the leak and the associated complaint. It said:
1. It failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in March, April and in June 2023, after his MP contacted it on his behalf.
2. The investigation into the cause of the leak was complex because it involved 3 properties, one of which was not owned by the landlord.
3. While there was evidence of some progress with the repairs, the records demonstrated a lack of direction and ownership.
4. Works stalled in September 2023 because of access problems to one of the flats involved and there was no evidence it attempted to look for a solution.
5. It had awarded compensation of £500, including £150 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
6. It would liaise with its contractors about the next steps for the repair and would get back to him.
The resident escalated his complaint on 21 September 2024. He said that nothing had changed since he originally complained and he was unhappy because there was “no clear end…in sight”. The resident said the property was uninhabitable and the ongoing situation was impacting him financially and mentally. He asked for the landlord to provide an action plan for the works.
The landlord concluded in its stage 2 response, dated 22 October 2024, that its initial response mostly dealt with the issues appropriately. However, it acknowledged there was an additional delay caused by its contractor attending on the wrong day. The landlord awarded a further payment of £100 (£600 in total). It said there was no evidence that the resident’s property was uninhabitable.
After the complaint process ended, the landlord continued its investigations in the resident’s flat and the flats above. It advised the resident in November 2024 that the leak had been traced to the flat above that it did not own. The landlord subsequently found that it was responsible for repairing this leak because the ingress was coming from the roof. It informed us in late-March 2023 that it had scheduled an appointment to carry out some CCTV investigations and repairs in early April 2025.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy with the progress the landlord had made. He said it has also not kept him updated. The resident advised that he has been impacted mentally and financially by the ongoing issue. He is seeking for the landlord to repair the leak and pay additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

According to the resident, the landlord was informed of the leak by his tenants in the summer of 2022. While the resident’s comments are acknowledged, there is no record in the available evidence, other than the resident’s reference in his March 2023 complaint, of any earlier reports. Our investigation, therefore, focuses on the landlord’s actions following the resident’s initial complaint until its stage 2 response in late-October 2024. Where we go beyond this period, is to consider if the landlord has completed actions it agreed to resolve the complaint.
The resident advised us that he has been significantly affected financially and psychologically. He told us that he has been paying a mortgage for a property that is uninhabitable. He also provided a copy of a surveyor’s report he obtained through a disrepair solicitor in August 2024. We note the resident’s comments about the impact that the situation has been having on him. The courts or an insurer are better suited to establish if a property is uninhabitable, either through a disrepair or insurance claim. Determining liability and awarding damages also requires a binding decision from a court or through an insurance claim. This report will therefore focus on whether the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of the impact his complaint was having on him.

Wastewater leak

In his March 2023 complaint, the resident reported that there were visible signs of a sewerage leak in the flat. Given the nature of the report, the landlord would be expected to prioritise its response. Its repair policy at the time said it aimed to complete emergency repairs within 2-24 hours, which it classed as issues posing an immediate risk to the tenant or property. It classified urgent repairs as issues where there was some level of risk, such as a leak, and aimed to respond within 5 days. We have seen no evidence that the landlord inspected the problem within its emergency or urgent timescale. There are also no records, that we have seen, that it contacted the resident for further information. We have also seen no evidence that it advised him about how it intended to address the problem, other than that the matter had been escalated to the repairs team. The landlord therefore failed to demonstrate that it met its policy timescales or that it communicated well with the resident at the earliest opportunity.
When the resident sought our intervention some 17 months later, he said he was unhappy that the landlord had still not resolved the problem. In the stage 1 response from September 2023, the landlord said that the issue was complex and involved investigations of 2 other properties. It also said that identifying the cause of leaks “often become[s] a process of elimination”. We accept that leaks into a home can sometimes be challenging to identify and fix. They can take multiple investigations and this can extend the time it takes to resolve the issue. In such cases, we would expect to see in the records that there was a clear audit trail of the actions taken and the reasons for them.
The landlord acknowledged that its record-keeping in this case should have been better. It said they reflected the “disjointed handling” of the resident’s reports. Like the landlord, we have found the repair records were lacking in sufficient detail to establish with confidence the exact sequence of repairs and rationale for them. However, they were not so poor to be a barrier to this investigation.
The repair logs show the landlord was carrying out external and internal investigations into the possible cause of the problem between March 2023 and June 2023. These included:
1. Unblocking a sewerage pipe serving the block on 23 March 2023.
2. Its surveyor inspecting the resident’s flat on 20 April 2023 and, following this, inspections of the waste pipe by a plumber.
3. CCTV of the drains, including the pipe thought to be affecting the resident’s property, in May and June 2023.
4. A repair to a “badly leaking” ball valve from the flat above on 21 June 2023.

Therefore, the evidence shows the landlord did initially investigate different potential causes of the leak through a range of ways. Some of these required specialist input.

While the landlord took some appropriate actions, the records also show that recommendations from the investigations were not always followed. The repair logs show the waste pipe inside the resident’s property was inspected 3 times between May and October 2023. The notes from these attendances indicate the operatives came to the same conclusion. This was that the pipe was inaccessible because it was built into a wall and required further works to gain access. The records also show that the landlord’s drainage contractor recommended works to remove roots from the drains and to seal fractures. However, there is no evidence, that we have seen, that this was considered any further by the landlord.
It is at the landlord’s discretion if it follows up on recommendations from its appointed contractors. But we would expect to see in such cases that there was an explanation for this or an alternative action proposed. It is unclear if this is due to a shortfall in the record-keeping or because the landlord simply failed to act on its contractors’ findings.
The records provided between October 2023 and August 2024 were limited. We were therefore unable to establish what was happening during this period, if anything. In its initial response, the landlord acknowledged that in this case the process was protracted and lacked oversight. It also took accountability for the works stopping in Autumn 2023. Although not clearly evidenced in the available records, in the circumstances, we accept the landlord’s account that it was responsible for the investigations stalling.
We expect a landlord to keep residents updated where repairs are concerned. This is particularly important in this case given the nature of the resident’s reports of the potential impact on his tenants and property. The available evidence shows the resident often had to chase up a response, including within the first week of making his complaint in March 2023. There was also no record, that we have seen, that the landlord was advising the resident about the course of its investigations and the reasons for them. This was a failing that could have been avoided if, as the landlord acknowledged, there had been better oversight. The stage 1 response did provide an overview of the investigations and, as explained, it took accountability for them not progressing. However, the fact it took 18 months and the resident escalating a complaint through the Ombudsman, was inappropriate.
When a landlord acknowledges failings, as was the case here, we consider if it has taken appropriate actions to put things right. For a landlord’s actions to be considered appropriate, it is expected to have followed its own policies and procedures and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Both require the landlord to apologise and explain what specific actions it will take to put things right. The Code requires that landlord’s “must clearly set out what will happen and by when”.
The landlord apologised and confirmed that it would be following up with the resident about what was happening with the outstanding work. But it did not provide a timescale or explain what works it would be carrying out. It therefore failed to adhere to the Code. The remedy therefore did little to further the resident’s knowledge of what would happen and when, which was the main outcome the resident said he was seeking.
The landlord also awarded compensation of £350 for the failings relating to its handling of the leak up to that point. Its compensation policy provides that sums for distress will usually be in the region of £100 to £300. The amount the landlord offered was reasonable, based on the information available to it at the time. It was within the range the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends for cases where a resident has been adversely affected, but there is no lasting impact.
When the resident escalated his complaint in late-September 2024, he said he was doing so because there had been no further progress with the repairs. He advised that to resolve his complaint he wanted the landlord to provide an action plan setting out how and when it intended to resolve the leak.
We have seen in the records that, following the stage 1 response, the landlord was attempting to schedule an appointment with one of the flats above. In its stage 2 response, the landlord also acknowledged there was a delay because its contractor missed an appointment due to a “misunderstanding”. We expect landlords to take accountability for the actions of its contractors, so it was appropriate that the landlord did so in this case.
The landlord also acknowledged its failure at stage 1 to provide an update on the works or a timescale. This was appropriate, for the reasons explained earlier. In the circumstances, we would have expected the landlord to take steps to put things right by explaining clearly what actions it was taking next, why, and when.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord gave an update on the findings of its most recent investigation. It also confirmed a date for its next appointment with its drainage contractor. The landlord therefore took some reasonable actions to put things right. We recognise that, in this case, it may not have been able to provide an exact plan to address the problem because it was dependent on the findings from its investigations. It could though have also considered other ways to put things right, such as committing to regular updates and appointing someone to oversee the repairs and contact with him. We have recommended that the landlord considers doing this.
In his escalation request, and other correspondence to the landlord around the same time, the resident said he was being significantly financially impacted. The landlord’s compensation policy states that tenants reporting damage to property, belongings, or personal injury should be directed to the landlord’s Insurance and Risk Team.
Although the resident had not asked to be compensated for his losses, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this impact. The landlord did partially because it said there was no evidence that the property was uninhabitable. As explained earlier, it is not something we are best placed to comment on. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide information about how the resident could claim for financial losses. It therefore did not follow its compensation policy.
The landlord did also award a further £100 compensation in the final response. This was a reasonable amount to account for the further delays and poor communication over the month between the stage 1 response and its final response.
The resident advised us that his building insurance has confirmed it will cover the resulting damage to his property. However, when this happens is dependent on the leak being fixed. The available records from after the complaints process ended show the landlord’s investigations have continued. These have included inspections of the 2 other flats.
Clearly the issue is complex and the fact it is still unresolved is itself not an obvious indication that the landlord has failed to meet its repair obligations. However, the resident advised that he has not been kept updated. We have seen some evidence that the landlord gave some updates in December 2024 and January 2025. This was to advise the resident that it had traced the leak to the flat that was owned by another leaseholder. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord has been in contact with him since 30 January 2025. At this time, it told the resident the leak was traced to the roof and so it was responsible for fixing the problem. Despite being requested, we have seen no evidence it has updated the resident about the work it told us about, which is due to go ahead on 8 April 2025.
While the landlord took some appropriate actions, it has failed to demonstrate that it has learned from its failings to keep the resident updated. It is also unclear if the landlord has now appointed someone to oversee the works, which as the stage 1 response highlighted would be beneficial in this case. We find that the continued mismanagement has caused additional distress. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay further compensation. This is in-line with its compensation policy, which states it may pay above £300 in cases where the distress is prolonged or significant. It is also ordered to take some specific actions to further remedy the impact and help ensure it avoids repeating the same mistakes in future. These are in-line with our remedies guidance.

Associated complaint

Like the Code, the landlord’s policy distinguishes between a request for a service (such as a repair) and a complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy also adheres to the timescales of the Code. It will then:
1. respond within 10 working-days of it logging the complaint at stage 1.
2. respond within 20 working-days of it logging the complaint at stage 2.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to escalate the complaint through its process in March, April, and June 2023. On all occasions, it dealt with the resident’s concerns as a service request instead of a complaint. In fact, it constituted both. The Code expects a landlord to progress a service request and complaint at the same time. That it failed to do this three times is an indication of a poor complaint handling practice. It was appropriate therefore for the landlord to acknowledge its failure and take steps to put things right.
The landlord responded to the complaint we escalated and the resident’s request to move to stage 2 within the required timescales. This was appropriate in view of its earlier failings. It also apologised and awarded £150 compensation. This amount is in the mid-range its compensation policy states it will generally pay. However, the landlord, by its own admission, acknowledged that the complaint process “could have provided a forum for a more effective response”. It also would have meant the resident would have been able to access this Service much earlier. Although we cannot say that a resolution to the complaint could have been achieved sooner, the loss of opportunity is a significant impact. We do not find the compensation awarded is proportionate to this.
The landlord is ordered to pay further compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its repeated failings to escalate the complaint. It is also ordered to demonstrate learning so we can be reassured it will escalate complaints through its process in future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an ongoing wastewater leak affecting his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to show the Ombudsman evidence that it has completed the following actions:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £950 compensation, made up of:
  1. £700 for the repair handling failings.
  2. £250 for the complaint handling failings.

If the landlord has already paid the compensation of £600 offered during the complaints process, this may be deducted, leaving £350 to pay.

Explain to the resident and us what works it is carrying out, why, and when they are due to be completed.
Provide details of how the resident can submit a legal or insurance claim to for his financial losses, should he wish to.
Give updated training to staff members on its complaints process, or evidence it has already done so within the last 6 months.

Recommendations

The landlord is asked to consider appointing a single point of contact for the resident. Ideally this person should have oversight over the outstanding repairs and should move them through to completion. It should agree a timeframe with the resident for providing regular updates.