Southwark Council (202341713)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341713

Southwark Council

26 November 2024

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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and associated repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat within a 7-storey block, comprised of similar properties. The resident and his son have asthma and the resident has autism.
The repair history for the property indicates that the resident reported an uncontainable leak into his property from above in January 2023 and the landlord was aware this was a “reoccurring issue”. The leak was resolved at the time and there are no further records related to leaks until 18 June 2023.
On 18 June 2023, the resident reported that water had leaked from above onto his electrics which had caused a complete loss of power. An operative isolated the resident’s bathroom light on the same day and raised a work order to reinstate the light once it resolved the leak.
The resident initially raised a complaint on 20 June 2023. He said that an electrician disconnected the bathroom light on the same day as the leak, which it had not reinstated. He said he had experienced issues with leaks from above for 5 years. Operatives were meant to repair damage in the flat, but works did not happen, and he needed to pay out to have works done himself. He said that he and his child had asthma, and the damp impacted their health. He felt the landlord had been negligent in its handling of the issues over 5 years.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 3 July 2023, confirming that it had completed a temporary repair in the flat above, but due to GDPR, it was unable to share specific details about the repair. Once it completed the repairs, it would inspect his property to assess the damage. It confirmed that he could claim via his home contents insurance or its insurance team for damage to personal belongings.
The resident continued to communicate with the landlord between July 2023 and April 2024 regarding ongoing leaks and outstanding repairs to damage in his property. In summary:
1. The landlord attempted an inspection on 3 July 2023, however, there was no access, and the resident maintained that someone told him this would be on 26 June 2023. This took place on 6 July 2023.
2. It replaced an extractor fan on 17 July 2023 and provided a decoration pack on the same day. It reinstated the bathroom light on 28 July 2023 and offered £25 compensation for the distress and delay.
3. Works to plaster the bathroom ceiling, bedroom wall and crack in the kitchen took place on 14 September 2023. On 15 September 2023, it established that the plaster was not dry in the bedroom and bathroom, but completed work to stain block and decorate the kitchen.
4. Following the resident’s reports that the leak was ongoing, on 19 October 2023, the landlord inspected the property and found a leak through the bathroom ceiling. On 24 October 2023, the landlord confirmed it was in the process of investigating the new leak. On 25 October 2023, operatives attended to complete plastering work, however the work was cancelled due to the ongoing leak.
5. He continued to pursue his concerns about the ongoing leak and the lack of timely action into December 2023. He maintained that the issues were impacting his, and his family’s, health. He added that the colour of the water leaking into the flat was yellow and could be waste. He sent further chasers to the landlord in January 2024 as the leak was ongoing and getting worse, noting that it had spread to other rooms in the property.
6. On 12 January 2024, the landlord apologised for the lack of response. It said that it believed the leak was caused by the concealed rainwater pipe running through the properties and it asked its roofing contractors to attend. It confirmed that it would update him.
7. In response, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of update, concern that the leak had been ongoing since the summer, the impact on his family’s health, damp and mould, and damage to the property, including concern that there was mould behind the tiles in the bathroom.
8. The resident continued to report leaks from above on 4 and 5 February 2024 and the resident in the flat above indicated to him that their washing machine and sink was leaking. On 7 February 2024, he reported that the leak was causing his boiler and central heating to trip. Operatives attended between 7 and 8 February 2024 to address repeated boiler faults and delivered fan heaters to him on 9 February 2024. The resident had access to hot water via his immersion heater at the time.
9. The resident continued to pursue his concerns and on 13 March 2024, he asked the landlord to provide all communication and his stage 1 and 2 complaint responses as he wanted to approach the Ombudsman. He maintained his concerns about the damage to the property and impact on his family’s health. The landlord said he would need to make a freedom of information request for this information. On 5 April 2024, he continued to report his concerns and provided medical documentation confirming that his son was at high risk of life-threatening asthma attacks, and the risk was exacerbated by his current living conditions.
10. The landlord confirmed it had decided to escalate the complaint on 8 April 2024.
Between April and May 2024, the resident continued to pursue his concerns with the landlord on multiple occasions. On 22 May 2024, it attended to isolate the lights in the resident’s kitchen following his report that the leak was impacting the electrics on 22 May 2024 and it left an alternative light source. He continued to express concern about the lack of action and said that the leak was impacting the use of his cooking facilities as it was not safe to use his electric cooker.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 May 2024 as follows:
1. It upheld the complaint due to significant delays and failures in addressing repeated leaks, which had caused extensive damage and ongoing inconvenience. It identified that there were lapses in its communication and appointment scheduling, which led to further frustration. It apologised for any inconveniences caused by the persistent leaks, damaged electrical systems, mould development, and the lack of timely repairs.
2. It summarised the history of the actions taken within the property, noting that:
  1. It had established there was an ongoing leak on 19 October 2023 which it believed was coming from the neighbouring sink basin to the stack pipe.
  2. On 9 February 2024, it established that water was running down the concealed duct running through the properties, and it suspected the leak was coming form the roof where the soil pipe and vent emerged.
  3. On 14 February 2024, it completed a thorough site inspection in every neighbouring flat from the top, using a camera feed through the bathroom wall and no leaks were detected. Another tenant reported water ingress when it rained, and it identified gaps in the brickwork which it then raised a repair for. There were several visits for the work, and it established that scaffolding was required to work at heights. The works were then delayed on 21 May 2024 due to poor weather. It confirmed that it had rebooked the work for 30 May 2024.
  4. During a visit in the week of 20 May 2024, it established that the cause of the leak into the resident’s property was not the brickwork but the internal rainwater stack pipe. Following a CCTV inspection on 23 May 2024, it found that there was a crack in the rainwater downpipe within a neighbouring property. A recommendation was made to renew the stack pipe from the neighbouring property to the ground level, but due to the disruption this would cause, it was exploring whether it could alter the stack pipe to take both rain and waste. It had arranged an appointment for 10 June 2024 to line the rainwater pipe to stop the leak and carry out pointing to the brickwork.
3. It noted the resident had said the water leaking onto the electric cooker had damaged his toaster and coffee machine. It advised him to claim via his home contents insurance and provided its insurance information if he did not have home contents insurance.
4. In relation to its handling of the stage 2 complaint, it confirmed that when the resident had enquired about his stage 2 response, it was still addressing the complaint at stage 1 which may have led to a misunderstanding of the stage 2 response expectation. It escalated the complaint on 8 April 2024, before his request to escalate to stage 2.
5. It apologised that it did not respond to an email chain including medical documentation indicating his son was as a high risk for future life-threatening asthma attacks due to damp and mould. It acknowledged that it needed to take immediate action, and it apologised that it did not conduct an early risk assessment. It apologised for any distress and health risks this may have caused.
6. It confirmed it would contact him on 29 May 2024 to apologise for the situation and advise him of the next steps. It would visit the property on 30 May 2024 to inspect and conduct a risk assessment. Due to weather delays, repointing was rescheduled for 10 June 2024. Its contractor needed to confirm whether it was feasible to alter the soil and vent pipe at roof level to handle both rain and waste.
7. Once it had identified and resolved the cause of the water ingress, it would return to make good the decoration in the property. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £2,800 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress caused from 18 June 2023 to 18 June 2024.
  2. £1,000 for the delays in resolving the various leak issues over a year.
  3. £250 for his time and trouble.
  4. £550 for the loss of heating over 6 months.

Events following the complaint

The resident’s communication indicates that he spoke to the landlord on 3 June 2024 and then provided information related to food expenses and electricity costs it had requested. The landlord’s records indicate that it offered temporary accommodation to the resident, but he said he would prefer to remain in the property and get compensation for loss of use of the property.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that it scheduled an appointment for 10 June 2024 to line the rainwater pipe to prevent the leak and complete work to the external brickwork which had already begun. This work was fully complete on 20 June 2024. The landlord then communicated with the resident regarding the internal work required.
On 11 September 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident as follows:
1. It acknowledged that there had been a further leak affecting multiple rooms, including bedrooms, kitchen ceiling, bathroom ceiling and hallway cupboard. The plumber who attended could not locate the source of the leak but suggested that this was related to the ductwork or poor repointing. It was aware of the situation and would complete further inspections.
2. It had completed work to replace all kitchen units, treat damp and cracks in the bathroom, and treat the hallway cupboard. It acknowledged that damp had returned, works were not completed to the resident’s satisfaction, and stains were left during work to the hallway and children’s room. It confirmed it was waiting for a date for work to the bathroom. It needed to further inspect the cupboard, and it would arrange a cleaner for the paint stains.
3. It had reassessed the offer of compensation and confirmed that it now offered £7,443.23, comprised of:
  1. Its previous offer of £2,800. It confirmed that its previous offer of £550 toward loss of heating and costs was more than the increased energy costs he had evidenced and upheld the offer.
  2. A rent rebate based on 35% of the rent paid between 20 June 2023 and 10 June 2024 totalling £2,422.15.
  3. £2,212.08 for food expenses due to the inconvenience and additional costs incurred during the period.
The resident continued to pursue the work to make good the damage caused by the further leaks into October 2024. In November 2024, he told the Ombudsman that he was awaiting repairs to the kitchen, bathroom, children’s room and hall.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referenced how the situation has impacted his and his family’s health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and his family.
The resident said that personal belongings were damaged due to the recurring leaks. As above, the Ombudsman is not able to determine liability. The resident has raised a claim via the landlord’s insurer and this report will not comment on the outcome of any claim made.
The resident raised concern about the landlord’s handling of his request to move and his housing application and that he wanted his banding to be reassessed. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to applications for re-housing through the local authority allocations scheme. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, and the award of points or banding, are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
At the time of his complaint, the resident said that issues involving leaks had been ongoing for 5 years. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to June 2023, when the resident began to report recent leaks. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in June 2023.
The resident also raised concerns about a further leak and damage to the property following the complaint. This investigation focuses on the period from January 2023 to June 2024. While other dates may be mentioned within the report when considering the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to respond to its handling of ongoing reports through its complaints process before the Ombudsman is able to investigate. An order has been made for the landlord to consider its handling of the ongoing reports.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters, and external pipes. The resident is responsible for allowing access to the property for it to complete inspections and repairs. The resident is responsible for internal decorations.
The landlord’s repairs guide states that it would attend emergency repairs, that pose a serious risk to health and safety or the structure of the property, within 24 hours and make the situation safe. It will attend urgent repairs within 3 working days, and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint confirms that it had 2 stages. At stage 1, it aimed to respond within 15 working days and at stage 2, it aimed to respond within 25 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and associated repairs

It is evident that the resident experienced ongoing leaks into his property from 18 June 2023 and this was ongoing at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response on 29 May 2024. Within its responses, the landlord has not disputed that there were delays and failures in addressing the repeated leaks, which led to extensive damage and ongoing inconvenience. It also acknowledged that there were lapses in communication and appointment scheduling, and a lack of timely repairs causing additional frustration.
Where a landlord admits to failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset, especially in blocks of flats where multiple properties may be involved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord and the landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when determining what work to undertake. However, it is evident that there were multiple visits to the building and the landlord failed to gain a firm diagnosis, or complete lasting repairs, for a significant period.
The resident first made the landlord aware of household vulnerabilities, including asthma which can be made worse by damp conditions, in his complaint on 20 June 2023. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have completed a risk assessment and to have reviewed this at regular intervals while the leak was ongoing to determine whether the property was habitable or whether the family needed to be moved to temporary accommodation given the risk to health.
While damp conditions and mould growth pose a risk to anyone’s health and should always be acted on quickly, it is particularly important that damp and mould is addressed with urgency for those likely to be more vulnerable to the health impacts, including children. In view of the potential hazards caused by damp conditions and the ongoing leaks, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord considered the potential risk, and whether it was necessary to decant (temporarily move) the resident and his family once it was aware of household vulnerabilities and ongoing leak issues in October 2023. Its failure to do so had a significant impact on the resident, who repeatedly reported his concerns about his family’s health.
The landlord acted reasonably in its stage 2 complaint response by acknowledging that it had not taken adequate steps to consider the risk to the resident or his family and that it should have completed an early risk assessment, especially given the household vulnerabilities. It acted appropriately by acknowledging that immediate action was required and apologising for any distress caused. While we have not seen documentation indicating that there was a risk assessment specifically, the landlord demonstrated that it understood it needed to act as a priority and it subsequently offered the resident temporary accommodation shortly after its stage 2 complaint response. This, alongside its later offer of compensation for loss of use of the property, indicates that it understood the property was not fully habitable because of the leak.
It is evident that the landlord’s communication failures in this case necessitated an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident in pursuing a resolution. The landlord has not disputed that there were “lapses” in its communication. Where there are issues affecting a property, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to communicate effectively with residents and provide updates on the actions it was taking to resolve the issue.
In more complex cases such as leaks affecting more than one property, the Ombudsman also expects landlords to provide residents with a staff member’s details as a point of contact. While the landlord provided some updates to the resident, these were sporadic and delayed, meaning that he understandably believed the landlord was taking no action to diagnose or resolve the cause of the issue over a significant period. It is evident that the resident spent significant time and trouble pursuing his concerns, including in emails copying in multiple staff members, but did not gain a response. The lack of adequate update, and perceived lack of action, was likely to make the resident feel unheard and further undermine the landlord-tenant relationship.
While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for “lapses in communication”, and specifically apologised for its failure to respond to an email chain where the resident provided medical documentation, it could have done more to address specific communication failings and what it would do to prevent similar failings within its complaint responses. This will be addressed in the complaint handling section below. Its records indicate that it provided a point of contact for the repairs following the complaint and it has also evidenced that it provided more regular updates which was appropriate in the circumstances.
Through its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged that there had been significant delays which had a major impact on the resident and his family. While it acknowledged overall delays, it failed to provide any specific explanation for these.
It is evident that there were significant delays in diagnosing the cause of the leaks into the property between June 2023 and the time of its stage 2 complaint response in May 2024. Given that it was aware of the history of leaks into the property, the landlord should have been proactive in its handling of the resident’s subsequent reports.
It investigated the resident’s initial report of a leak within a reasonable overall timescale. However, following his further reports of a leak into the property in October 2023 there were delays in its diagnosis. Its repair records indicate that it may have been aware of a possible leak from the rainwater pipe as early as 10 August 2023 during investigations of a leak affecting another property within the block. On 20 October 2023, it raised a work order that specifically related to the rainwater pipe causing a problem at a different property. It confirmed to the resident that it intended to complete work to resolve the leak on 10 November 2023. However, it has not provided evidence of any steps taken to investigate this further until 20 December 2023, when it raised a repair order for another property that related to a crack in the concealed rainwater pipe.
While its records suggest that there were access issues and this was not attended to until 22 January 2024, it would have been appropriate for it to have acted with urgency to progress the investigation, or sought to continue investigations in other ways given the reports of ongoing leaks and the impact on the resident (and various other properties within the building reporting leaks). On 22 January 2024, it established the issue with the pipe must be in a different property and subsequently, on 9 February 2024, it found that water was running down the concealed duct in a property above the resident’s, which it assumed was coming from the roof.
While the landlord found no leaks during a site inspection which involved using cameras in the bathroom wall cavity on 14 February 2024, it was aware of water running down the duct a few days prior, and the worsening of the leak in the resident’s property. It then established a fault with the external brickwork which its operatives believed could be contributing to the water ingress. There is no clear evidence to show that a leak from the duct was explored further until May 2024, where it established the leak into the resident’s property was not due to the external pointing. While the landlord has admitted to delays, it could have done more within its response to address any missed opportunities it had to investigate the rainwater pipe from the outset.
It is evident that the leak was ongoing at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acted appropriately by setting out its next steps and confirming what it intended to do to resolve the leak. Its records indicate that it acted within a reasonable timescale following the complaint and initially completed work to line the rainwater pipe and external brickwork between 10 and 20 June 2024. It subsequently progressed the internal works to remedy the damage to the property.
It was reasonable that the landlord could not complete internal works to put right the damage to the property until it resolved the leak. The delay in identifying the cause of the leak naturally led to delays in internal works to remedy the condition of the property. At some stages, the landlord raised work orders to complete internal remedial work when the leak had not yet been resolved which was likely to cause confusion.
As set out above, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have assessed and reviewed the risk to the resident and his family at regular intervals, especially given that the leak worsened over time, spread, and impacted electrics. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the loss of heating and hot water over a 6-month period within its stage 2 complaint response to account for higher energy bills because of running temporary heaters and using the immersion heater for hot water. It subsequently acted fairly by compensating the resident for food expenses because he was unable to use his kitchen facilities.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the circumstances for severe maladministration apply in this case. The level of compensation required to put things right is significant in view of the landlord’s failures to resolve the leak impacting the resident’s property between June 2023 to June 2024 and the cumulative impact on him as a result. The landlord was also aware of the resident’s household vulnerabilities which is an aggravating factor in its handling of the repairs as it should have done more to act proactively to diagnose the cause of the leak, which it has not disputed.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s overall offer of £7,443.23 is considerable and within a range that the Ombudsman would order in similar circumstances. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that amounts over £1,000 are considered proportionate where there were failings that cumulated over a period of time, and had a seriously detrimental impact on a resident. The landlord and resident had communicated regarding its intention to increase the offer of compensation prior to the resident escalating his complaint to this Service for investigation and it was appropriate for the landlord to consider and offer additional compensation for loss of use of the property alongside its recognition of the distress and delays.
While it could have done more to address specific failings and demonstrate it had learnt from the complaint within its complaint responses to the resident, which will be addressed further below, the overall level of compensation offered is considered reasonable redress for the impact on the resident as a result of its failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords should address each aspect of a complaint, identify where things have gone wrong and demonstrate learning within their responses. The resident initially raised a complaint on 20 June 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 3 July 2023, which was within its stage 1 response timescale of 15 working days.
However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not comment on his other concerns about the leak reoccurring over 5 years, or historical repairs that had not taken place and he paid for himself. While the resident did not pursue his concerns related to previous costs, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed its understanding of any previous repairs that it had not completed.
While it was reasonable that the landlord could not share specific details about the neighbouring resident due to GDPR regulations, it could have done more to confirm when it intended to complete works and how it had satisfied itself that the repairs would provide a long-term fix. Its response provided no reassurance as to when it would resolve the matter, which was likely to cause additional concern to the resident.
The landlord confirmed that it had “decided” to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 8 April 2024, and this was “before” his request to escalate to stage 2. This response to its handling of the complaint was inappropriate. The landlord had the opportunity to acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction at stage 2 at an earlier stage to avoid extending the overall timeframe of the complaint.
While he had not mentioned “stage 2” specifically prior to 13 March 2024, he expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ongoing leaks and damage to his property on at least 22 occasions between 3 July 2023 and 8 April 2024. He also copied multiple staff into the emails (including its chief executive officer), confirmed that he may seek legal advice, mentioned approaching the Ombudsman, and maintained that the landlord had been “negligent;” all of which should have prompted the landlord to consider his concerns formally.
More specifically, on 13 March 2024 and 4 April 2024, the resident asked the landlord to provide copies of all communication with him, and its stage 1 and stage 2 responses to his complaint. At the time, the landlord incorrectly advised the resident that he would need to raise a freedom of information request and did not seek to progress the complaint. Within its subsequent response, the landlord indicated that the complaint was still being handled at stage 1 at the time which, as above, was inappropriate as the resident had clearly set out his reasons for dissatisfaction.
In addition, while the landlord escalated the complaint on 8 April 2024, it did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 29 May 2024, a period of 35 working days. During this time, the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing his concerns with the landlord via the Ombudsman. While it confirmed that there would be a delay on 8 May 2024, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that it provided any further update. While it acknowledged overall time and trouble, including its response time, the landlord did not address its complaint handling delays within its subsequent response, which amounts to a failing.
The landlord acknowledged that there were significant delays and lapses in its communication and appointment scheduling within its response. It did not dispute that there had been a significant impact on the resident, as recognised within its compensation offer. However, it did not demonstrate that it took any learning from the resident’s complaint, established why delays or failings occurred, or set out steps it would take to improve its response to leaks moving forward. Its response primarily set out a list of actions taken and did not analyse where delays occurred or how it could have prevented these.
The landlord’s failure to demonstrate it had learnt from the complaint amounts to a significant failing given the extent of the impact on the resident in this case. In view of this, the landlord should complete a management review of the case to consider any missed opportunities and staff training needs, and establish points of learning to improve its future response to similar cases.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to take all reasonable steps to resolve matters and offer suitable redress at the time of the complaint. While the landlord was aware that the Ombudsman was due to investigate the resident’s case at the time of its increased offer in September 2024, the resident and landlord had communicated about increased compensation shortly after the complaint. The resident confirmed that the landlord had said it intended to offer a rent rebate and additional compensation when he referred his complaint for investigation in June 2024.
It was reasonable for the landlord, on receipt of evidence following the complaint, to consider the additional costs incurred by the resident. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered offering a rent reimbursement to acknowledge the loss of use of the property at the time of its stage 2 complaint response as a means to put things right. It is, however, noted that the resident had specifically requested compensation for loss of use rather than temporary accommodation in the period following the complaint and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to review its offer based on this request.
The Ombudsman has made a recommendation below for the landlord to consider adding guidance for calculating loss of room and use to its compensation policy if it has not already done so. This is to ensure that its approach is consistent, and it does not miss the opportunity to put things right for a resident within its internal complaints process.
In summary, the landlord unreasonably extended the timeframe of the complaint by not addressing the complaint at stage 2 sooner following the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. It failed to adequately engage with the delays in its complaint handling or with specific failings, which was likely to make the resident feel it had not fully considered the impact on him and his family.
The landlord offered £250 for the overall time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing his concerns, including its response times. While this accounted for its complaint handling delays at stage 2, the amount offered is not proportionate as a combined offer considering the time and trouble the resident spent as a result of its poor communication. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay additional compensation in view of the failings identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and associated repairs, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings outlined in this report.
2. Pay the resident an additional £250 in recognition of the failings identified in its response to his complaint.
3. Consider its handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks and water damage since June 2024 and any failings which may have contributed to continued delay. It should set out its findings in writing to the resident and make an offer of compensation in recognition of the impact of the ongoing delay since its stage 2 complaint response in May 2024 where appropriate. It should also confirm whether there are any outstanding actions. If dissatisfied with its response, the resident may wish to raise a new complaint to the landlord if he has not already done so.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman within 12 weeks. At a minimum, the review should:
1. Consider any missed opportunities in its handling of the resident’s reports to establish points of learning in how it manages reports of recurring leaks in the future.
2. Consider how it communicates with residents regarding leaks where this impacts more than one property in a building.
3. Consider how it will ensure that its staff complete and review risk assessments over the course of a leak (or other repair issue).
4. Set out steps it will take to improve its response to similar situations in the future, including any staff training or changes to its policy or practice.
5. Consider whether it has appropriate guidance for calculating compensation for loss of room and loss of use within its compensation policy to ensure that its approach is consistent, and it does not miss the opportunity to put things right for a resident within its internal complaints process.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £7,443.23 as previously offered if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman found reasonable redress on the basis that this was paid.
The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the recommendation above within 4 weeks.