City of London Corporation — case 202336072

Decision Case ID 202336072 Decision type Investigation Landlord City of London Corporation Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 28 November 2025 Background The resident has lived in the property, a 2-bedroom, second floor flat, since 2018. On the balcony off the living room area, there is a drain that leads into a rainwater down-pipe. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a flooded balcony. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination) There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a flooded balcony. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord responded appropriately to the reports of flooding. There was a delay in the landlord’s complaint responses. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence it has directly paid to the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its delayed stage 2 response.

No later than 22 December 2025 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 10 October 2023 The resident complained that his balcony had flooded due to a blocked pipe and the landlord had taken too long to fix it. He wanted compensation for damage caused and preventative measures taken. 26 October 2023 The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It outlined the repairs it had completed. It said it would not offer compensation for damage and this should be covered by the resident’s contents insurance.

It offered to complete any decoration needed. 26 October 2023 The resident escalated the complaint. He wanted the landlord to confirm it was responsible for the pipe on the balcony. 20 December 2023 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It answered the resident’s query and said it does own the pipe. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident was unhappy with the landlord not offering compensation. He wants the landlord to pay for his flooring that was water damaged. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The handling of the resident’s reports of a flooded balcony Finding No maladministration The resident reported on 18 September 2023 that his balcony had flooded with water, which had entered the property. The landlord’s contractor attended on 21 September 2023, within the landlord’s target timescale of 5 days. The contractor cleared the drain on the balcony of mud and silt.

It was recommended the drain outlet be descaled and any debris down the pipe removed. This was completed twice, on 29 September and 13 October 2023. The landlord’s response to the reports of flooding was appropriate. It attended within timescales and completed the necessary repairs. The resident complained as he believed he would be recharged for the repairs. He also sought compensation for damaged flooring in his living room where the water had come in. The landlord correctly informed him that any damage caused to flooring should be covered by contents insurance.

It was reasonable for the landlord not to offer compensation for this. It had met its obligation by repairing the blocked drain/pipe soon after it was reported. The stage 1 response reassured the resident he was not liable for the repair charge. The landlord told him there should be no further problems after the drain had been cleared and descaled. It offered to make good any decoration in the property, which was reasonable. The resident had astroturf on his balcony, which was not permitted as it may affect drainage.

The landlord asked him to remove this. It noted this may have contributed to the level of the water on the balcony and the fact it entered the property. The landlord was fair in taking responsibility for the blocked drain but asking the resident to assist in reducing problems in the future. The resident escalated his complaint, specifically asking the landlord to acknowledge it owned and had responsibility for the water pipe that ran from his balcony. The landlord appropriately responded that it did own and have responsibility for it.

There was nothing further the landlord was expected to do regarding this issue. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a flooded balcony. It met its repair obligations within reasonable timescales. It also made a fair decision about compensation and appropriately advised the resident about contents insurance. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord issued its stage 1 response 12 working days after the complaint was made.

This was slightly over its 10 working day target. The stage 2 response was given 35 working days after the escalation was acknowledged. The target timescale is 20 working days. The delay was not excessive and had no effect on the substantive issue that had been rectified. However it amounts to service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its late complaint responses.

This is in line with our remedies guidance for low level service failure that did not have a significant impact. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) There were sufficient records to allow for this investigation. Communication The landlord communicated its decision making appropriately to the resident. It also visited him at home which was appropriate.