Camden Council (202208606)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208606

Camden Council

23 November 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property which is a first floor flat. She purchased the property in 2014 and sub-lets the property to tenants. The upstairs neighbour is a tenant of the landlord. This Service has not been provided with details of the tenancy type of the neighbour.
3. This Service has not seen the lease, however, the landlord’s information for leaseholders available on its website states that all repairs in the property are the leaseholders responsibility. The landlord has a duty to put things right for the resident if the situation is caused by its action or inaction, or at least to return the resident to previous state.
4. The landlord’s remedies policy states that it will consider remedies that are appropriate and proportionate. It will not consider remedies that could be settled by insurance claims.

Summary of events

5. On 11 June 2020 the resident’s upstairs neighbour advised the landlord that a leak from their property was affecting the resident’s property below. A contractor attended the neighbour’s property the following day and completed a repair behind the bath panel.
6. The next repair issue was not reported until 31 March 2021 when the upstairs neighbour advised the landlord that the bath and sink were “backing up” which was affecting the resident’s flat below. A contractor attended the same day and cleared a blockage.
7. There was a further gap in repair issues being reported until 3 January 2022 when the resident contacted the landlord and advised that there was a leak coming into her property from the neighbour’s property above. She stated that this was the fourth leak from the property and that on each occasion she had to pay an excess on her insurance.
8. On 6 January 2022 the landlord’s leaseholder team advised the resident that it had copied in the repairs team for them to resolve the issue. The following day the landlord advised the resident that as soon as the upstairs neighbour made contact, it would arrange to inspect the leak. The landlord had not inspected the leak by 23 February 2022 when the resident reported another leak from the property above. It is not clear from the reports or landlord’s records if this was the same leak or a separate one.
9. On 7 March 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s email (of 3 January 2022) as a stage 1 complaint and stated that it could only find one works order related to a leak from 23 February 2022 which it had scheduled to attend on 24 March 2022.
10. The resident escalated her complaint the same day and stated that she had reported leaks on 11 June 2020 and on 2 January 2022. She reiterated that each time there was a leak she had to pay £400 insurance excess which the landlord did not reimburse.
11. A contractor attended the neighbours property on 24 March 2022 and made a repair to the toilet.
12. On 29 March 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated:
    1. It had located records of three reported leaks into the resident’s property from the property above since June 2020. Two were due to the cistern and one was caused by a blockage. The reports had been correctly recorded against the upstairs property. It had completed these repair jobs as follows:
       1. The leak of 11 June 2020 was completed on 12 June 2020.
       2. The leak reported on 31 March 2021 was fixed the day it was reported.
       3. The resident’s report of the leak on 3 January 2022 was made to its leaseholder service and not the repairs service. The landlord referred it to the repairs service on 7 January 2022. Following a further report in February 2022, it was fixed on 24 March 2022.
    2. It stated that there was no record of an inspection or works order being raised following its referral to the repairs team on 7 January 2022. It apologised for this and stated that it was an oversight. It stated that the 2022 repair took longer to be repaired due to workloads and availability of operatives. It acknowledged that if it had properly followed up on the report from January 2022, it may have been resolved sooner.
    3. Each repair had been duly attended to within its set target timeframe.
    4. The leaks were due to three separate issues and could not be foreseen or avoided.
    5. It was unable to compensate the resident for the excess on her insurance claims as the landlord was not liable for the leaks or for the damage that resulted.
    6. It acknowledged that the stage 1 response did not fully meet the standard it expected as there was a lack of evidence of the investigative steps taken to consider the complaint. It concluded that the complaint was partly upheld on that basis.
13. On 4 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for further information about the repairs. She stated that she believed that if the leak reported on 7 January 2022 had been repaired in a timely manner, the leak in February 2022 causing a hole in the ceiling and water ingress onto her tenants’ sofa could have been avoided.
14. On 26 July 2022 the resident referred her complaint to this Service. She requested that the landlord pay for repairs and repainting to the ceiling.

Correspondence following the involvement of this Service

15. On 5 October 2022 the upstairs neighbour reported that her toilet was leaking which was affecting the resident’s property below.
16. On 7 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and outlined her frustration at the recent leak. She stated that her and her tenants were fed up with the constant disruption and having to repair and repaint the ceiling as a result of the landlord not “overhauling” the plumbing in the property above. She advised she was considering legal action.
17. That same day the landlord raised an emergency job as water was “pouring” from the toilet in the property above which was going into the resident’s property. A repair was carried out the same day.
18. On 28 October 2022 the landlord requested that the bathroom in the property above be assessed. This took place on 24 November 2022 with the contractor reporting that the bathroom was “decades old in desperate need of upgrade”. The landlord advised the resident that this was due to take place in Janaury 2023. It is not clear from the records provided when this took place but the landlord had completed the works to renew the bathroom in the upstairs property by July 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

19. Within the complaint, the resident referred to previous leaks that affected the property in 2020 and 2021. This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord at the time (2020 or 2021). These instances have therefore been referred to in this report for context but do not form part of this investigation. This is in accordance with Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (normally within 6 months of the matters arising). This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response following the resident’s report of a leak in Janaury 2022.
20. As the resident’s upstairs neighbour was a tenant of the landlord, the landlord was responsible for repairs in the property above and was therefore required to act in accordance with its repairs obligations once these issues were reported to it. Although the resident advised the landlord of the leak coming from the property above on 3 Janaury 2022, the landlord stated that it had to wait for the neighbour to report it before it could act. The landlord’s advice that it had to wait for the tenant to report it was inappropriate. Once a landlord has been notified of a repair, for which it is reasonably clear it is responsible, then it is required to act regardless of how it was reported. In this instance the resident had made clear that damage had been caused by the repair issue and the landlord could have been expected to acknowledge that it was their responsibility and to take action.
21. The landlord had an obligation to put things right and to investigate and resolve the leak. The landlord however did not take any action to resolve the leak until the resident reported it again on 23 February 2022. Despite this being brought to the landlord’s attention again it did not repair the source of the leak (the toilet in the upstairs property) until 24 March 2022.
22. The timeframe from 3 January 2022 (leak first reported) to 24 March 2022 (leak repaired) of just under 12 weeks was not reasonable and was not in line with the landlord’s policy which states that it will prioritise non-emergency repairs which will damage a neighbour’s property if not fixed. The policy specifically mentions that this includes containable leaks and that the repair timeframe is within 20 days. Even when the landlord was made aware of the February 2022 leak it still did not prioritise the repair despite being aware that it had caused significant damage to the resident’s ceiling, namely a hole and also damage to a sofa. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord prioritised this repair in light of the damage that the resident reported had been caused to her property. This was not appropriate and was not in line with its repairs policy. The landlord’s lack of prompt action to resolve the leak resulted in water damage for a prolonged period which caused damage.
23. The landlord partly upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2 on the basis that the stage 1 response did not fully investigate the complaint. The landlord however did not acknowledge that it had delayed in carrying out the repair. It was satisfied however that the leaks had been caused by separate issues and that it could not have been foreseen or avoided the leak. It is evident however that the landlord knew that the neighbours bathroom was ‘decades old’ (the landlord advised this Service that the bathroom was installed in 2003). Despite this and the number of leaks reported, it did not consider whether the neighbour’s bathroom should be replaced until October 2022, when it was confirmed that that bathroom needed to be replaced.
24. It is unclear why the condition of the neighbour’s bathroom which was in ‘desperate’ need of repair was not picked up earlier by the landlord or considered at an earlier stage. The landlord’s conclusion that it could not have foreseen the leak is not supported by the plumbers subsequent findings about the age and condition of the neighbour’s bathroom. It is noted by this Service however that there is no evidence to confirm that that landlord was incorrect in stating that the leaks were unrelated.
25. The landlord could have considered the condition of the neighbours bathroom sooner and should have prioritised the repairs of the leaks in 2022. The landlord’s stance that it had met the repair timescales was not appropriate. Due to the landlord’s inactions the damage caused to the resident’s property was exacerbated. Whilst the resident was able to claim for the damage via her insurance policy, this cost her £400 in insurance excess upon making the claim in 2022. The landlord’s failure to follow its procedure to repair the leaksin a timely manner amounts to maladministration. The landlord has been ordered to pay a total of £400 compensation to the resident. This is awarded to put the resident back in the position she would have been in had the leaks not have occurred.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above.

Reasons

27. The landlord did not follow its procedure in responding to the reported leaks and did not carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe. This prolonged the timeframe that water was causing damage to the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

28. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide confirmation of compliance to this Service:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failing in how it responded to the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above.
    2. Pay the resident £400 compensation to acknowledge the excess paid by the resident on her insurance and for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure.