Barnet Council (202006969)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006969

Barnet Homes

9 July 2021


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 has complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and about the level of compensation it has offered.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy in effect from May 2018 has various timeframes for repairs:
    1. High priority repairs are defined as “where a delay could cause …, damage to the structure of the property” and should be completed in 3 working days.
    2. Medium priority repairs are defined as “where a repair needs to be completed as it is presenting a hindrance to the tenant and their ability to use the properties or amenities correctly” and should be completed within 7 working days.
    3. Routine priority repairs are defined as “where a repair needs to be completed but is not presenting a hindrance to the tenant and their ability to use the property or amenities correctly” and should be completed within 15 working days.
    4. Lower priority repairs are defined as “where a multi-trade, more complex repair, or renewal is required involving more than 3 appointments” and should be completed within 28 working days.
  2. The landlord’s Repairs Policy in effect from April 2020 states that where a repair needs to be completed but is not considered an immediate risk, it is dealt with as a responsive repair by appointment.  With a repair that can be dealt with as a “first time fix”, works should be completed within 15 working days of the order being raised.  Where there are “programmed works”, i.e., not a “first time fix”, the works will require a pre-inspection, two or more appointments and should be completed within 25 working days inclusive of the inspection.
  3. Both repair policies states that “following a report of a roof leak, a roofing inspection will be raised to establish the cause of the leak and the works required…Following inspection, repairs orders will be delivered within the appropriate repairs priority timescale”.

Compensation Policy

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Policy in effect at the time of the complaint states that it can “consider claims … for compensation of financial loss for the following where it is responsible or the matter… delays or failure to carry out repairs… missed appointments,…distress or inconvenience”. The policy states that depending on “the degree of service failure and the extent of hardship suffered…compensation can be awarded up to a maximum of £100 per service failure.”   With regards to distress and inconvenience the policy states that “all staff are authorised to make a discretionary payment of up to £100… for a failure to provide a service in line with our policies, procedures or service standards… A Head of Service or Director may use their discretion to make an ex-gratia “goodwill” payment above this limit.”
  2. With regards to missed appointments, the Compensation Policy in effect at the time of the complaint states that “if the Barnet Group’s staff or contractors fail to attend a pre-arranged repair appointment within a grace period of 15 minutes of the scheduled time or fail to provide 24 hours’ notice when rescheduling a repair appointment, the resident can claim £10 per missed appointment”.

Summary of Events

  1. On 15 November 2019 the landlord raised an order with its contractor to attend to a leak. A roofing sub-contractor attended on 13 December 2019 finding defects in the roof but identified that drainage works to unblock an internal outlet should first be completed. An order was raised on 4 February 2020 for a plumber to clear the gully on the roof but when the plumber attended on 12 February 2020, he/she reported that jetting works were required.  A job order for jetting works was raised on 17 February 2020 and contractors attended on 24 February 2020.  The roofing works were subsequently rescheduled for 20 March 2020.  However, on 25 March 2020, the contractor advised the landlord that it could not carry out repair works as the drain outlets were blocked again.
  2. The landlord intended to terminate its contract with its repair contractor in April 2020 and bring the repairs service inhouse.
  3. In the interim the landlord received and acknowledged a formal complaint from the resident on 11 March 2020, stating it would aim to respond to the complaint within 10 working days. Its record of the complaint stated that the resident had reported that there had been a leak to the building which had moved to his bedroom.  Plumbers had attended several times, but the resident had been repeatedly told that the leak could not be traced, whilst he was sure it was a roof leak. The resident also in his complaint said he was advised the leak would be resolved on 14 February 2020, but this did not occur.
  4. The landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint, although the response letter would appear to be incorrectly dated, showing the date 18 February 2020. It noted that works were still outstanding after the visit of 20 March 2020, and it accepted that there was an avoidable service delay.  It advised that the works had been placed on a priority list to be completed when its repair service resumed operating in full capacity.
  5. The landlord explained that there were difficulties in expediting works efficiently insofar as the contractor was unable to complete works with a target date before the end of contract and there had been slow progress in reducing the overall outstanding work for the contractors as part of the demobilisation plan. Furthermore, the landlord explained that it had to follow the government guidance on the Covid 19 pandemic which had affected its ability to implement contingency plans across its stock.
  6. On 8 July 2020, the resident called to report several repairs issues including water in his bathroom. The landlord raised an order for its new roofing contractor (having now brought the repairs service in–house) to inspect the leak and the roof, in conjunction with the resident on 8 July 2020.  There was a missed appointment on 10 July 2020 as the contractor received the job order the day before and was not aware that an appointment had already been made.   The resident subsequently escalated the complaint.
  7. On 27 July 2020, the landlord sent the stage 2 response. The landlord explained due to Covid 19, it had delayed in bringing the repairs service in–house on 1 April 2020 and had extended the contractor’s contract by three months; however, many sub–contractors, such as roofers had either cut down their workforce or stopped operating altogether, aside from emergencies.  The landlord further explained that the works at the resident’s property had been passed to its new roofing sub–contractor at the start of July 2020.  It apologised for the miscommunication leading to the missed appointment of 10 July 2020 and awarded £10 compensation for this. The landlord advised that a roofing surveyor could inspect the roof on 28 or 30 July 2020.
  8. The landlord further explained that after it was allowed to carry out non-emergency works, the backlog of works led to delays and difficulties updating residents. It upheld the complaint, apologised for the delay and offered the resident a further £60 as a gesture of goodwill making a total offer of £70.
  9. On 30 July 2020 the landlord’s roofing contractor advised that the leak was not rainwater, and that it was a plumbing job.
  10. On 1 September 2020, the landlord’s plumber advised that the leak had been traced to a “leak on the bath waste” and had “stopped since roof has been fixed”.
  11. On 9 October 2020 the resident referred his complaint to this Service stating that he was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation for leaks that had been ongoing for a year.

Assessment and findings

  1. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. In line with paragraph 39(e) this Service is able to consider the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint of March 2020 and only with respect to events occurring within six months prior to that complaint, and subsequent to the complaint.
  2. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the works it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.  In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy as noted above set out its timeframes for repairs.
  3. In this case, the landlord raised a repair request on 15 November 2019 and evidently understood the leak was from the roof as it asked a roof contractor to inspect in the first instance, in line with the Repairs Policy. In some circumstances of disrepair and/or report of a leak, it may take more than one inspection to ascertain and remedy the problem and it is not unreasonable for the landlord to carry out more than one visit, in order to resolve matters, particularly where the issue is complex and/or the root cause of the leak is unknown. In this case the roofing contractor understood that related drainage works would need to be completed prior. It is not clear what priority was given to the repair request but given that it transpired that completion of the repair entailed a multi-trade works, it would have been in line with the timeframe for “lower priority repairs” for the leak to have been resolved within 28 days of the job was raised, on or by 13 December 2019.
  4. However, the works were still not completed even when the roofing works were rescheduled over three months later, on 20 March 2020. Within this period there were unreasonable delays. This included a period of 7 weeks before the landlord raised the order to complete the drainage works.  Also, it was unreasonable that the roofing works for 20 March 2020 were not expedited to an earlier date following the identification of the need for jetting on 12 February 2020 as this was over the 28-day timeframe for lower priority repairs. The date of 20 March 2020 was also unreasonable given the context of the original repair being raised originally in November 2019.
  5. The fact that the drain outlets were blocked on 20 March 2020, despite the jetting works, further delayed the repair to the leak.  It is not possible to ascertain that the delay was foreseeable or preventable. Nonetheless, the resident had a reasonable expectation that the repair to the leak would be resolved on this date given that there had been three previous sets of contractors attending the property, including jetting works.  Moreover, he had by that stage had raised a formal complaint about the handling of the works which the landlord was seeking to resolve. 
  6. Thereafter, the further delay from March 2020 to July 2020 was attributable to Covid 19 restriction to works that landlords could carry out, and therefore outside the control of the landlord and not unreasonable.  The resident pursed the repair to the leak on 8 July 2020, by which time lockdown restrictions had been eased, on 4 July 2020.  As the landlord had a new roofing contractor it was reasonable, and consistent with the Repairs Policy that a new inspection was arranged before completion of works. Nonetheless, under the updated Repairs Policy, the repair should have been completed within 25 working days, by 12 August 2020.  Notwithstanding the need for a plumber to also attend, there was a further delay in completing the repair as the repair was not completed on 1 September 2020.
  7. Landlords’ complaints handling procedures should demonstrate that their purpose is to resolve disputes and restore the tenant’s position if something has gone wrong.  It is the landlord’s responsibility to use the complaints procedure to put matters right. In responding to the complaint, the landlord accepted that there were delays in the works and took steps to provide redress. This included an apology and an explanation of the factors that contributed to the delay to the works, such as the decommissioning of the previous contractor compounded by the unforeseen impact of the Covid 19 pandemic.  Its offer of £10 compensation for the missed appointment of 10 July 2020 was also appropriate as it accorded with Compensation Policy.
  8. However, the compensation offer of £60 was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Ultimately the failure to complete the repair led to multiple inspections and inconvenience, as well as prolonged disrepair.  There were separate and cumulative instances where the landlord did not meet its timeframes arranging and completing works, which under the compensation procedure could have been compensated for on an individual basis. Therefore, it is not considered that the landlord took sufficient steps to resolve the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord.

Reasons

  1. There were separate and cumulative instances where the landlord did not meet its timeframes for arranging and completing works.  This caused prolonged disrepair and inconvenience. Whilst the landlord took steps to offer redress, it compensation offer of £60 was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders

  1. The landlord pays the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of works between his repair request of November 2019 and the failed appointment of March 2020.
  2. The landlord pays the resident a further £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in the handling of his further repair request of 8 July 2020.

If the landlord has already paid the compensation offered within the complaints procedure, it need only pay the difference which would amount to £80.