All Case Studies

Multiple leaks (June 2024)

Summary

Mr D a resident leaseholder had reported multiple leaks since moving into his property. In July 2022 Mr D reported a leak which was coming from a neighbouring property.  Initially we said that the Mr D was responsible for repairing the leaks as it was a leaseholder to leaseholder issue.  Following further reports, we sent out contractors within our policy timeframe and resolved the leak in August 2022.

A few days later, Mr D reported that the leak continued. We sent out contractors the next day and found a leak in stack pipe that was also affecting neighbouring flats. Access was needed to neighbouring flats, which was denied on a few occasions. A leak was found in the toilet pan in a neighbouring flat and repaired in September. Sadly the leak continued and we had to send contractors out again to investigate until Mr D confirmed the leak had stopped.

In October 2022 Mr D reported waste water was leaking into his property.  We attended to inspect the property and seek access to neighbouring flats. We were unsuccessful on 3 occasions. In late November, we identified the leak source to a different flat. Again we were unsuccessful in gaining access. Finally in December the leak was repaired.

Mr D reiterated his compensation and bathroom ceiling repair request in January 2023. In our response to the complaint we apologised for the time it took, sealed and painted the ceiling and offered £250 compensation, the maximum under our policy. We also offered to redecorate the bathroom. Mr D was unhappy and escalated the complaint to stage 2.

In our response we apologised for the leak, delays and poor communication. We did not agree that we had caused excessive delay as there was multiple leaks. Mr D referred the matter to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman found:

1. although it took 60 calendar days to resolve the initial leak, Poplar HARCA had responded to reports in line with its repairs policy timescales
2. it took 58 days to resolve the second leak but did not provide evidence that the repairs were investigated within its 14 calendar days timeframe
3. that it was appropriate that our response apologised for the leaks, delays, and the distress this had caused to Mr D and his partner. It further went to offer redecoration of the bathroom and an offer of £300 compensation
4. the offer was in line with our policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance
5. we showed that we sought to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from the outcome

The Ombudsman also found that it took 113 days to formally respond to Mr D’s complaint, however it did continue to communicate and send a holding response. The Ombudsman took the view that we did not have to wait until the case was resolved to respond to the complaint. This caused unreasonable lengthy delay.

 

Outcome

The Ombudsman made the following determinations:

• we offered reasonable redress to Mr D prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which resolved the complaint satisfactorily
• there was maladministration by our handling of Mr D’s complaint

 

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman made the following orders and recommendations:

1. write an apology to Mr D for our poor handling of his complaint.
2. pay Mr D £100 additional compensation in recognition of our poor complaint handling
3. pay Mr D the £300 compensation we previously offered him.
4. provide Mr D with the outcomes of our surveyors’ inspections of his property and neighbouring flats including the specialist survey of the building’s communal stack pipework in 2024-25
5. review our staff training needs in relation to the application of our complaint’s procedure and the Code. This is to ensure complaints are raised as soon as dissatisfaction is expressed with our response to a service request