Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Waltham Forest Council (202401637)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401637

Waltham Forest Council

12 September 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak into his property.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the block.
  2. The block contains 25 flats split across 3 floors. Flats on the first and second floors have paved balconies which are located above the ceilings of the flats below. Neighbour A is a tenant of the landlord whose balcony is above the resident’s flat. The landlord is responsible for repairs to neighbour A’s property.
  3. The resident has said that in October 2019 he first noticed water ingress into his bathroom through the ceiling. The landlord records that the resident first reported the leak to it on 20 February 2020. The resident continued to contact the landlord to report the ongoing leak throughout 2021 and 2022. He advised that it had damaged the electrics and plasterwork in his bathroom, caused extensive mould to develop and later begun to spread to his bedroom ceiling.
  4. On 6 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. He said that the landlord’s contractor had attended in November 2022 to inspect both his property and neighbour A’s. Following this the contractor had told him it believed the leak was coming from the balcony of neighbour A’s flat. The resident asked for an update on the situation.
  5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on or around 15 February 2024. He expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had failed to address the leak which had now been ongoing for 4 years.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 February 2024. It apologised that it had not yet been able to resolve the leak, but said it was difficult to identify the source and cause of leaks within larger blocks. The landlord said its contractor was due to carry out works to neighbour A’s balcony which it believed would resolve the leak. However, it was currently having difficulties arranging access to do this. It offered the resident compensation of £400 for the delays in repairing the leak, the distress and inconvenience caused, and his time and trouble taken pursuing the matter.
  7. On or around 4 March 2024, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. He asked the landlord to fix the leak and address “what is to be done with regards to the damage to my property”.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 April 2024. It said that work to neighbour A’s balcony had been arranged for 8 April 2024. The landlord advised that the resident was “ultimately responsible” for repairing any internal damage to the property caused by the leak but provided him with information about making a liability claim against it if he wished to do so. It said it felt the £400 compensation offered at stage 1 provided suitable redress for its failings.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it “usually cannot consider events that occurred more than 12 months ago, or which the resident was made aware of more than 12 months ago”. However, in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord recounted events dating back to 2020, when the resident first reported the leak. It is therefore appropriate that this investigation considers that same period.
  2. The resident first made the landlord aware of the leak on 20 February 2020. On 24 February 2020, the landlord’s repairs contractor attempted to visit the resident’s flat and a flat above (not neighbour A’s) but was unable to gain access to either. There is no evidence to suggest that these visits had been arranged with the resident or the neighbour, or that the landlord followed up on them after the no access.
  3. The resident reported the leak again on 2 March 2020. The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended and isolated the water supply to a flat above, however there is no indication that it identified the source of the leak or took steps to remedy it. Nor is there any evidence that it informed the resident of the action it had taken.
  4. On 27 December 2020, the resident reported that the leak had returned following heavy rainfall. The landlord’s contractor attended the block on 14 January 2021 but recorded that it was unable to access the 2 flats above the resident’s flat. It then cancelled the works order.
  5. It is of concern that this represented the second time the landlord’s contractor had attended reports of a leak and closed the works order after a single occasion of no access. Leaks by their nature require urgent investigation and remedial action or will continue to cause damage to any affected areas. It is inappropriate to close a works order for a leak unless the leak has stopped or been traced and repaired. There is no evidence that the landlord or its contractor reasonably believed this to be the case.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord claimed that after 27 December 2020 the resident did not report any further issues with the leak until April 2023. However, emails provided by the landlord for this investigation show that the resident contacted it multiple times in 2021 and 2022 to report that the leak was still ongoing and causing further damage to his property. The landlord’s repair records also show that the resident’s next door neighbour reported a similar issue on 7 September 2022 – with leaks into his property whenever there was rainfall.
  7. Shortly after this, on 12 October 2022, the resident reported the leak again and the landlord raised a works order for its contractor to investigate. On 1 November 2022, the contractor reported back that the leak was coming from one of the 2 balconies above the resident’s flat and had “been leaking for a while”. It said follow on works were needed to reseal the balcony and recommended that its drains and downpipe were also cleared.
  8. This works order was cancelled on 19 April 2023 as the landlord deemed it to be ‘superseded’ by roofing works which it had identified when investigating the leak into the resident’s neighbour’s flat. It is unclear why the landlord decided this. The roofing works (which were completed on 19 June 2023) did not involve carrying out any works to neighbour A’s balcony – which its contractor had identified as the source of the leak into the resident’s flat.
  9. On 14 April 2023, the landlord raised a further works order for its contractor to check the balconies of all the first and second floor flats. It said that all ground floor flats were now experiencing leaks. The contractor’s notes indicate that it only visited 2 flats within the block, neither of which were the resident’s flat or neighbour A’s. It later carried out works to the balcony and drainage of one of these flats.
  10. The resident continued to report the leak to the landlord throughout September and October 2023. He informed it that the source of the leak had previously been identified as neighbour A’s balcony by its contactor. On 20 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had spoken to neighbour A who did not believe they had a leak. Due to the nature of the suspected leak, under the balcony paving, it would have been unlikely to be apparent to neighbour A. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a suitably qualified person to inspect the balcony.
  11. At some point following this, the landlord identified that neighbour A’s balcony was the source of the leak. It is unclear from the information provided to this Service exactly when and how it concluded this. The landlord’s contractor attended neighbour A’s flat on 5 January 2024 to carry out remedial works. Neighbour A had not been made aware that works would be carried out on this date and believed it would only be a brief inspection. Due to this he was unable to give access for a sufficient period for the works to be completed. This miscommunication further delayed the leak in being resolved.
  12. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident that it had now identified the source of the leak or was arranging to repair it. Had it done so, the resident may not have made his complaint, which was submitted just a few weeks later.
  13. It is apparent that following the 5 January 2024 the landlord experienced difficulties in arranging access to neighbour A’s property. These were still ongoing at the point of its stage 1 complaint response on 29 February 2024. The landlord made reasonable efforts to engage neighbour A and was eventually able to agree access for 8 April 2024. Its contractor completed the necessary works to neighbour A’s balcony on that date.
  14. The resident has advised that due to a lack of heavy rainfall during the summer months, he is unsure whether the works have successfully resolved the leak. An order is made regarding this below.
  15. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that the resident was “ultimately responsible” for the internal damage to the property. This was in keeping with the resident’s lease which says he is responsible for maintenance of the interior of the flat including ceilings and internal walls. The landlord appropriately advised the resident on to how to make a liability claim against it for the damage.
  16. The resident has said that he has attempted to make a claim but was advised by the landlord’s insurers that the date the leak first appeared was prior to the landlord’s policy with them started and therefore not covered. It is the Ombudsman’s view that any claim with the landlord’s former insurer would now be time barred. A recommendation regarding remedial works for the damage is made below.
  17. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that diagnosing and addressing the source of leaks within larger blocks can be difficult. However, it is evident that the landlord did not appropriately investigate the source of the leak into the resident’s property until November 2022. This was almost 3 years after he first began reporting the issue. Once it did investigate, the landlord failed to act upon its contractor’s assessment, that neighbour A’s balcony was the source of the leak, for a further year.
  18. The landlord’s repairs policy sets a 45 day timescale for it to complete complex works above and beyond general day to day repairs. Tracing and remedying such a leak could reasonably be considered to fit this description. Neighbour A’s balcony was repaired over 4 years after the resident first reported the leak into his flat. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the delays in repairing the leak, it claimed mitigation for this due to issues with access to neighbour A’s property, which had contributed to just the final few months of this period.
  19. The resident has described the impact of the leak and associated damage to his home as being “mentally draining” and causing him to be “distress and anxiety”. He said he felt unable to have visitors to his home as he was “embarrassed and ashamed about the state of the place”. The resident said that since the leak began, he had “been constantly calling and emailing also using the council’s website to report this issue” but there had been a “lack of action” and communication from the landlord in return.
  20. The landlord offered the resident a total of £400 compensation. This was made up of £100 for the delays in carrying out the repair, £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for the time and trouble the resident had taken. This figure falls within the range contained in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of maladministration.
  21. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this amount cannot be said to offer reasonable redress in this case. Due to the landlord’s failings, the resident lived with a leak causing increasing damage to his property for a 4 year period which he was unable to remedy. The landlord’s poor communication and failure to progress the matter meant he took extensive time and trouble in continuously raising the matter with it, including via his local MP.
  22. Considering this, and the fact that the landlord failed to recognise the full extent of its failings during its internal complaints procedure, a finding of maladministration has been reached. In recognition of the significant impact on the resident over a prolonged period, an order for compensation totalling £1,000 is made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,000 composed of:
      1. The £400 offered during its internal complaints procedure.
      2. A further £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused and time and trouble taken by the resident due to its maladministration in the handling of the leak.
    2. Apologise to the resident for the maladministration identified by this report.
    3. Provide the resident with contact details for a single point of contact within its repairs team who is familiar with his case. This will enable him to report any further water ingress that may occur following periods of heavy rain in autumn/winter 2024 and be confident of an effective response.
    4. Review its response to initial reports of leaks, to ensure that these are not attended unannounced or closed off following a single instance of no access.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord arranges to carry out the below remedial works for the resident as a gesture of goodwill to repair the landlord-tenant relationship:
    1. Mould treatment and redecoration of any ceiling and wall areas in the resident’s bathroom and bedroom affected by the leak.
    2. Repair or replace the resident’s extractor fan.
    3. Repair or replace the resident’s bathroom light fitting.