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

London Borough of Newham (202210355)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210355

Newham Council

3 June 2023

 

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 complaint is about: 
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has exercised discretion to consider events that occurred after the complaint was duly made with this Service. This is because these events relate directly to the issues raised and the landlord’s proposed resolution of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and occupies a flat within a block. His upstairs neighbour is a leaseholder.
  2. On 10 November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that a leak was coming from above his property and affecting his bathroom ceiling. Ten days later he requested that it raise a complaint as the leak had persisted for over a week and the delayed repair was exacerbating damage to his ceiling. The landlord did not uphold the complaint on 23 December 2021, when it relayed that the upstairs neighbour had carried out work to resolve the leak. In response to the resident’s report that the leak continued, it advised it would inspect on 5 January 2022.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint on 2 February 2022. The resident highlighted that he had not received a confirmation that the leak had been traced and fixed. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 22 June 2022 which upheld his complaint. In this, it apologised for its lack of communication about the repair to the leak and acknowledged that it had delayed in escalating his complaint to the final stage. The landlord offered £150 compensation and confirmed that it would carry out remedial work to the resident’s bathroom ceiling on 23 June 2022.
  4. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 21 November 2022 that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports of the leak. To resolve his complaint, he wanted the landlord to complete the repairs to his bathroom ceiling, – which remained outstanding – and to resolve the leak. The resident also wanted compensation for his distress and inconvenience.
  5. The Landlord informed this Service on 20 April 2023 that it had arranged to complete the repair to the resident’s ceiling for 28 April 2023. It increased its compensation offer to £750, inclusive of its previous offer.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak

  1. The resident’s lease agreement with the landlord confirms that the leaseholder is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the interior of the property. This includes the interior faces of the walls and ceilings. This also confirms that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. When an external leak affects a resident’s property, the landlord is expected to identify the source of the leak and prevent the leak from persisting. If the source of the leak is from a neighbouring property, it would be expected to contact the neighbour to facilitate a repair. If appropriate, carry out the repairs and satisfy itself that the leak no longer affected the resident’s property.
  3. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of the steps it took to satisfy itself that the leak from the resident’s upstairs neighbour was resolved. While there is no obligation on the landlord to provide details about its contact with a third party, it would be expected of it to provide regular updates to the resident to manage his expectations. Furthermore, this would prevent the resident having to chase the landlord to progress the matter.
  4. There was a failure by the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident about the progress of remedying the leak from upstairs. Furthermore, there was a failure by the landlord to follow through promptly with its proposed remedy of repairing the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
  5. When the resident first reported the leak from above his property on 10 November 2021, there was no evidence of any action by the landlord or contact with the resident. After he raised a complaint about the matter, it inspected the upstairs property on 17 December 2021; however, there was no evidence of any findings from this being conveyed to the resident.
  6. The landlord’s stage one response relayed that it would carry out further investigation of the resident’s report of a leak by inspecting the upstairs property on 5 January 2022. Again, there was no evidence of the outcome of this inspection, whether this inspection took place or what was relayed to the resident about this.
  7. In response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with communication about the progress of the repair, the landlord informed him on 3 February 2022 that it would inspect the upstairs property. It said it would update him on the outcome of this. There was no evidence that the landlord updated the resident until 23 May 2022 when it called him to discuss his final stage complaint.
  8. The landlord provided a chronology of events to this Service that stated that it carried out remedial work in the upstairs property on 22 June 2022 which stopped the leak. This was incongruous with its record of a call with the resident the following day. During this, he expressed concern that the leak would continue as he was unaware of any works being completed upstairs. The landlord’s response to this was to advise that it would seek access to the upstairs property to inspect.
  9. There was a clear failure of communication by the landlord to the resident about its progress in addressing the leak from above. There has been insufficient evidence presented to the Ombudsman to confirm that it took appropriate steps to halt the leak or carry out remedial work. This lack of information also prevents this Service from determining when the leak was actually fixed.
  10. The lack of clear information provided to the resident from the landlord contributed to uncertainty and frustration for him. As the leaseholder of the property, he was responsible for repairing the ceiling that had become damaged by the leak. The landlord’s reticence in providing clear details about whether work had been completed to stop the leak would have prevented him from carrying out any work to repair the ceiling as he had no confirmation that the leak would not continue.
  11. It was reasonable therefore, for the landlord to offer to repair the resident’s bathroom ceiling as part of its proposed resolution to his complaint. This was scheduled to begin on 23 June 2022 but was postponed as the leak was not fixed. The landlord’s records indicate that the leak was fixed on 4 July 2022, but there was no evidence of attendance by the landlord to repair the resident’s ceiling until 4 April 2023. This was in spite of the resident confirming to the landlord on 22 December 2022 that the ceiling now felt dry to the touch. In this same communication he asked what the source of the leak was and there was no evidence of it answering this.
  12. Therefore, there was an excessive delay in carrying out the ceiling repair work, and during this time the resident made seven contacts with the landlord to seek updates on whether the leak had been resolved and when it would carry out the repair. The landlord’s responses to these offered no clear timeframes to him.
  13. In conclusion, the infrequency of, and vagueness of, communication from the landlord throughout the process, combined with its unreasonable delay in following through with its proposed repairs to the resident’s bathroom ceiling, amount to maladministration. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience, being left uncertain of the progress of the repairs for an extended time and was required to expend an excessive level of time and effort in contacting the landlord for information.
  14. The landlord informed the Ombudsman on 20 April 2023 that it would now offer the resident £600 compensation in addition to the £150 it previously offered. It did not provide a breakdown of how much of the total £750 compensation it offered was solely for its handling of the leak. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, provides for awards of £100 to £600 compensation where there has been failure by the landlord leading to detriment for the resident which may not be permanent. Given the length of time over which the landlord did not communicate effectively, and its delay in commencing repairs in the resident’s property, we would typically award compensation in the region of £600 for this. Therefore, the revised offer of compensation was reasonable and the landlord will be ordered to pay this to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. For tenants and leaseholders, at stage one of this procedure it should provide its response to the resident within ten working days. At the final stage, the landlord should respond to the resident within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which all member landlords are required to adhere to.
  2. The Code states that a resident’s complaint must be escalated to the next stage if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint unless there is a valid reason not to. The Code also states that, at the final stage, a landlord may extend the timeframe for its response by ten working days if it explains why to the resident and provides a clear timeframe for its response. Any extension to the response timeframe above 20 working days must be agreed with the resident.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint, made on 20 November 2021, on 23 December 2021. This was after 23 working days had elapsed, and there was no evidence of the landlord informing the resident that there would be a delay. It, therefore, failed to respond to the complaint in accordance with the timeframe specified in its own policy and the Code.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2022 to “formally resubmit [his] complaint” as he was still awaiting confirmation of the landlord’s actions to trace and fix the leak from upstairs. As this was a request from the resident for further consideration of his complaint, the landlord should have recognised this as his escalation request. It did not recognise the resident’s request for the escalation of the complaint until 8 April 2022; this was the date it quoted in its final stage complaint response.
  5. The landlord’s belated acknowledgement of the complaint was made on 23 April 2022, in which it noted that his escalation request was received on 22 March 2022. This date was inconsistent with the evidence and served to further obfuscate the complaints process. The landlord eventually provided its final stage response to the resident on 22 June 2022; this was 96 working days later, or approximately four months, after he initially voiced his dissatisfaction with its stage one response.
  6. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its handling of the escalation of the complaint in its final stage response. While it did acknowledge the delay at the final stage, it did not recognise that it had also delayed in responding at stage one. In light of this and the delay at the final stage, discussed above, the compensation it offered in its final response of £50 for its handling of the complaint was inadequate. The £50 offered did not recognise the full extent of its complaint handling failures. Nor did it proportionately address the resultant distress and inconvenience experienced by, and the time and trouble expended by, the resident in progressing the complaint. These failures amount to a finding of service failure in this instance.
  7. The landlord’s revised offer of compensation of £750 did not specifically apportion an amount to recognise its complaint handling failures. However, given that the Ombudsman would typically award compensation in the region of £150 for the failures identified, in accordance with our remedies guidance, mentioned above, the landlord’s offer was reasonable, and it will be ordered to pay this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a leak.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident its revised offer of £750 compensation, of which the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for:
      1. £600 of this to address its failures in the handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
      2. £150 of this to recognise its failures in the handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Review its procedures for communicating with customers during complex repairs and confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that customers are provided with clear and accurate updates to manage their expectations.
    2. Review its procedures for the management of repairs and confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that agreed repairs are carried promptly.