Peabody Trust (201905045)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201905045

Peabody Trust

17 August 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks from the roof of his property.
2. The resident’s reports of damage to his property caused by leaks from the roof.
The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat on the second floor of a two storey block of six flats. The lease commenced on 9 July 2004. The landlord has advised that it is unable to access a copy of the resident’s lease.
It is acknowledged that the resident has said that he has been experiencing leaks from the roof into his property since he purchased the property in 2004. However, the Ombudsman expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable amount of time, normally within six months of the matter being complained about occurring. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from the resident’s report of a leak from his roof on 9 July 2019.

Summary of events

On 9 July 2019, the resident reported a further leak from the roof. The resident said that he had reported the issue to the landlord before and that the leak had been an ongoing problem for many years and needed to be resolved because his property was getting damp. The resident said that he wanted the landlord to change the roof. The landlord responded the following day advising that a new repair had been raised to investigate and resolve the leak.
On 15 July 2019, the resident emailed the landlord for an update. The landlord responded the following day advising the resident that a further works order had been raised to fully investigate and resolve all issues with the leak. The landlord also said that, as the resident was a leaseholder, it would not be able to carry out any internal repairs to his property and that these would need to be handled by the resident’s own insurers.
On 19 July 2019, the resident submitted a web complaint to this service. The resident complained about a history of roof leaks and damage to his property. The resident said that he wanted the landlord to replace the roof, fix the damage within his property and the communal area, and to pay him £20,000 compensation for all the years he had been experiencing leaks from the roof.
The resident contacted this service again on 25 September 2019 and the landlord was contacted by this service on 3 October and 15 November 2019 to ask it to log a formal complaint about the roof leaks. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 October 2019 to acknowledge his complaint and to advise that a case manager would contact him within the next few days.
On 25 November 2019, the resident called the landlord following a message it had left on 22 November 2019. The landlord said that it would liaise with its contractor to find out what the current situation was and to agree a way forward. On 10 December 2019, landlord emailed the resident to advise that its contract with its roofing contractor had been terminated with immediate effect. No evidence has been provided as to the reason the contract was terminated. The landlord said that once the previous contractors had removed their scaffolding it would be able to reassign the works to a new contractor. The landlord said that its previous contractor would need to gain access to a neighbouring property’s garden in order to take down the scaffold.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 February 2020, noting that the scaffolding had been removed and requesting an update on the roof works. The landlord responded the same day, advising that it was in the process of allocating the works to a new contractor and that it would be in contact no later than the following Monday, 10 February 2020, to advise what the next steps would be.
On 26 February 2020, landlord called the new roofing contractor and arranged for an inspection of the roof. The landlord also emailed the resident on 26 February 2020 to apologise that the repair had not yet been completed. The landlord said that its new roofing contract would start the works between 8 and 10 March 2020 with a view to having the works completed by 14 March 2020, weather permitting.
On 16 April 2020, the landlord’s new roofing contractors carried out an inspection of the roof. The report noted that scaffolding had been erected at the rear of the property. The contractor recommended the removal and later refixing the interlocking slates to enable it to renew the valley including changing all broken interlocking slates. The contractor provided the landlord with a quote for the required works the same day.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 11 June 2020. The landlord:
1. Explained that due to the termination of its contract with its previous roof contractor it had to arrange for that contractor to remove its scaffolding before it could arrange for the works to be reassigned to a new contractor.
2. Explained that its previous contractor had been unable to remove their scaffolding until 17 February 2020.
3. Said that its new contractor had experienced issues gaining access to a neighbouring property’s garden in order to erect their scaffolding and it did not receive the new contractor’s report on the scope of works until 11 March 2020, which it then needed to review before the works could begin.
4. Said that the works were approved in April 2020 however, specialist roof tiles were required and, as these were not available ‘‘off the shelf’’ they needed to be ordered which, due to Covid19, took longer than expected to be delivered.
5. Confirmed that the works commenced on 2 June 2020 and were completed on 9 June 2020.
With regards to the resident’s claim for compensation for the internal damage to his flat. The landlord explained that as the resident was a leaseholder he would need to claim for any damage to his property through his own insurance. The landlord also said that if the resident felt that the landlord was liable for any damage to his home, he could submit an insurance liability claim against the landlord’s insurers, for which the landlord provided contact details.
On 16 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s insurance team to ask how to proceed with a claim. The resident also emailed the landlord on the same day to confirm that he would like to escalate his complaint to stage two. The resident said that the reasons for this were:
1. That he had contacted its insurance team, as advised, but that he remained dissatisfied as he felt that the landlord should carry out the repairs to his flat and did not want to go through all this again with the insurance team.
2. That he was seeking £32,500 compensation for the 50 months since he initially reported the leak on 27 May 2016.
On 17 June 2020, the landlord’s insurance team emailed the resident. The insurance team confirmed that as the resident was a leaseholder, the landlord would not be able to carry out any repairs to his property. However, the resident was covered under his building insurance policy should he wish to submit a claim. The insurance team attached the summary of cover, which it said outlined what was covered under the policy and how to submit a claim. The insurance team also provided the resident with a link to an online claims form. The insurance team confirmed that the resident would need to make a claim under his own content’s insurance for any damage to his contents and that his insurers could then pursue the landlord’s insurers for the recovery of any costs if they believed that the landlord was liable.
On 8 July 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the delay in it acknowledging his escalation request and to acknowledge that whilst the repairs to the roof had been completed it understood that the resident had since raised another repair to the roof. The resident responded later the same day to confirm that the roof still had not been fixed and was still leaking. The resident advised that landlord that he did not believe that his flat was safe to live in as the water was going into the electrics and asked that the landlord arrange for temporary accommodation for him and his family.
On 10 July 2020 a new case was opened with the landlord’s Customer Care Incident Manager. The landlord’s notes state that this was because several orders had been raised for repairs to the roof but it was still leaking. The landlord’s records note that the Customer Care Incident Manager contacted the resident to arrange for a further inspection of the roof and an emergency inspection of his property, noting that the resident had reported that he was living in dangerous conditions. The resident initially advised the landlord that he would not take any days off work unless the landlord paid him, as he had already taken enough days off but later agreed to provide access. The resident also raised concerns about the disconnection of lights in his property. The landlord advised the resident that the contractor would only disconnect the lights that had been affected and recommending that the resident use other forms of lighting such as a lamp whilst the lights were disconnected. The landlord acknowledged that this was not convenient but would ensure that the resident and his family’s safety. There is however no evidence that that the emergency visit to make safe took place at that time.
On 31 July 2020, following further contact from the resident, the landlord was contacted by this service asking it to provide the resident with an update on his complaint. The landlord emailed the resident the same day. The landlord apologised for not updating the resident sooner and for not responding to his complaint by the original target date, explaining this was due to the impact of Covid19 on its services. The landlord noted that the works to the roof were completed in June 2020 but the resident had since advised that the leak was ongoing. The landlord asked the resident to send in some photos of the current leak so that it could have a better understanding of the current position.
On 2 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord. The resident advised the landlord that the leak was still there and sent a number of photographs showing the condition of his ceilings and roof timbers. The resident said that the patch work to the roof would not last for long and that, in his view, the roof needed to be completely overhauled.
On 12 August 2020, a further survey was carried out by the landlord’s new roofing contractor. The contractor reported the leaks occurred during wind driven rain and that the leaks were affecting other flats and possibly the communal hallway. The contractor reported that the main pitched roof had had multiple repairs previously, the lead aprons had minimal laps over each other and some ariel cables had been drilled through the aprons. The contractor noted that the slates it could see looked ‘‘ok’’ but the type of slate had a thin interlocking weather channel that could be easily broken and the slate would still look to be fine until removed and the channel exposed. The contractor also noted that the existing slates were very difficult to repair. The contractor suggested that, due to the condition of the roof and the type of slates, a joint site visit was carried out with the landlord’s surveyor to discuss the best way forward on resolving the leaks. The contractor also suggested that a new roof, using a different roof covering, may be the best economical way forward as the building had had roof issues historically that had never been resolved long term.
On 19 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to again report further ingress of water following rain two days earlier. On 21 August 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it was sorry to hear about the water leak and to see the video that he sent with his previous email. The landlord said that its contractor had advised that it would need to visit the property again with a surveyor and it was currently awaiting an update on this. The landlord said that would update the resident in the coming week.
On 9 September 2020, the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the roof. In an internal email on the same day the surveyor reported that it was found that the roof had a number of defects and the contractors had put in for a new roof. However, the surveyor’s understanding was that a new roof was installed in 2016/2017. The surveyor also said that a previous contractor attended and claimed the roof did not have the correct fall and it was below the standards. The surveyor said that this would need to be checked and whether the roof was still in warranty as other contractors seem to have carried out works to the roof. The landlord later confirmed to the Ombudsman that the roof had not been replaced and that the works referred to by its surveyor related to its contractor replacing a defective lead gulley and defective felt with new tiles in March 2017. The surveyor said that they had asked the contractor to return to complete a water test using a hose to identify any potential defects which are calling internal issues. The surveyor noted that the visible defective identified were:
1. Defective lead
2. Pointing
3. Cracked tiles
4. Coping stones which seem to have insufficient fixings.
On 10 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to ask that it forward him a copy of the surveyor’s reports and to confirm how long it would take to repair the roof. The resident said that, as the landlord had seen from the videos he had sent it, he was living in mouldy, damp conditions and water was pouring in on him and his family. The resident also said that the water is going into the electrics and that, despite several requests, the landlord had refused to provide him with alternative accommodation.
The replacement of the roof was referred to the landlord’s Investment Panel on 28 September 2020. The landlord later explained that it was common practice to refer suggested large scale works to the investment panel as they could authorise works that were generally more large scale than the responsive repairs budget provides for. The landlord also explained that to ensure value for money its investment budget priorities were cyclical bathroom and kitchen works, fire safety and cladding.
The Investment Panel rejected the roof replacement referral. The panel concluded that the roof looked quite new, that the issues with the roof could be resolved via responsive repairs works and that it was therefore not eligible for investment works funding. Internal landlord emails at the time cast some doubt as to the detail of the information provided to the panel at that time. The landlord was asked to provide the minutes from the meeting in order to provide further clarity. The landlord advised that no minutes were taken.
On 3 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say that he had not received any updates about the roof. The landlord responded on 6 October 2020. The landlord confirmed that it had carried out another inspection of the roof and a number of visible defects had been identified. The landlord said that, as it was concerned that there could be other defects (that were not visible), it would need to carry out a water/dye test. The landlord said that it appreciated that it was taking some time to get the works to the roof started and the pandemic continued to affect it and its contractors. The landlord said that it would update the resident when the test had been carried out and works scheduled. The landlord said that it could also then calculate compensation for the resident. The landlord said that it was sorry but it was not responsible for providing alternative accommodation for leaseholders.
On 9 October 2020, this service advised the landlord that it needed to issue its response to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days, otherwise this service would consider whether to investigate the complaint early due to failings in the landlord’s complaints handling.
On 14 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to report further water ingress following heavy rain the previous evening. The resident said that water was coming like ‘‘tap water’’ into his flat and the communal area. The landlord responded on 19 October 2020 to say that it was ‘‘sorry to hear about the current situation’’, that it was waiting for a start date for the roof works and that it had asked its contractor to start as soon as possible.
On 26 October 2020, the landlord was contacted again by this service and asked to issue its complaint response to the resident within the following 10 working days. The landlord was reminded that failure to provide complaint responses in a timely manner could result in the Ombudsman issuing a Complaint Handling Failure Order.
On 30 October 2020, the roofing contractor contacted the landlord to advise that it did not need to carry out a water/dye test as it could see where the water was entering the building. The contractor explained to the landlord that the slate was too short and the valley was very shallow which meant that directional rain was raining under the slate. The contractor said that the valley needed to be cemented up and that there was pointing on the lead which had come away.
On 31 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge that it had not yet responded in full to the resident’s complaint but that it had been progressing a resolution to the leaks. The landlord said that the complaints manager was on leave for a week but the issue was with the contractor and surveyor to progress in their absence. The landlord advised that they would be back on 9 November 2020 and would come back to the resident on that date with a full and final response to his complaint, including a schedule of works and compensation offer.
The landlord issued its stage two and final response on 9 November 2020. The landlord:
1. Acknowledged that there had been delays in completing the repair to the roof, describing a number of factors which had contributed to the delay including; time to obtain materials, issues in gaining access, the need for scaffolding causing delays, delays due to the ending of its partnership with its original contractor, as well as the impact of the pandemic on it and its contractor’s service provision ability. The landlord also said that in hindsight it may have been better to have involved a surveyor and ensured closer monitoring sooner.
2. Said that the works would be carried out in the next four weeks, weather permitting. The landlord said that it had booked its contractor to attend on 8 November 2020 however they were unable to carry out the works as it was not dry enough. The landlord went on to explain that the contractor had advised that water was getting in from the slates, where the valley is and that directional rain was coming in under the slates there. The landlord said that the contractor needed to cement up the valley and carry out re-pointing to resolve this.
3. That it had used this and similar cases to create a simpler process for repairs complaints, to ensure they are prioritised and that they get resolved more efficiently and in a timelier manner in future.
4. Acknowledged that the resident had experienced time, trouble and inconvenience which was, in part down to itself and its contractors. The landlord also acknowledged that there had been delays in it progressing his complaint, which it said again was due in part to the impact of Covid19.
5. Reiterated that the resident would need to claim for any damage to his property on his contents insurance and, should he feel that the landlord was liable for that damage, he could submit an insurance liability claim that would be investigated by the landlord’s insurers. The landlord also said that, as a gesture of goodwill it would be willing to offer the resident an amount towards his insurance excess and asked the resident to come back to it within three months to agree this. The landlord also reiterated that it was unable to offer temporary accommodation as the resident owned his property and the landlord did not have the responsibilities to him that it would have to a tenant.
6. Offered the resident £400 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience, which it said was the maximum it could offer under its compensation policy.
7. Also offered the resident £100 for its complaint handling failure, advising that this too was the maximum it could offer.
On 12 November 2020, the landlord was advised by the contractor that roof works were booked in for the following day. The contractor noted that it had left a voicemail on the resident’s phone. The landlord’s records note that the works were completed on 25 November 2020.
The resident continued to report leaks after the works were completed on 25 November 2020. In February 2021 the landlord carried out a drone survey of the roof following which it sought a further quote from its contractor, which again included works to the valley and the roof tiles. A further survey of the roof was then carried out on 12 April 2021. The landlord noted that this was to determine the scope of works required and who would be undertaking them. In an email to the resident on 14 May 2021, the landlord confirmed that its surveying team were still investigating the works required and that the works should be completed by the end of June 2021. During this time the landlord again contacted the resident to discuss arrangements for an electrician to attend, a wet vac to be carried out, and for the ceiling to be made safe. In an email to the resident on 26 May 2021 the landlord advised that following discussions with its surveyor, the resident’s insurance would need to address the issues with the electrics and the making good in his flat. In an internal email on 2 August 2021 the landlord confirmed that it would need to carry out holding works to cover the areas that were allowing ingress whilst the roof renewal was still under tender.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be more usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
When the Ombudsman considers awarding compensation, this is not to award ‘damages’ in the way that a court might or reimburse all the resident’s cost in the way an insurance claim might. The purpose of compensation is to award an amount that proportionately recognises the likely level of distress and inconvenience experienced by a resident due to any identified failures on the landlord’s part. Therefore, any amount awarded is unlikely to meet the amount sought by the resident. If the resident wishes to seek the recovery of any costs or damages he has incurred, he may wish to seek independent legal advice on making an insurance claim or pursuing the matter through the courts.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof of his

property.

The Ombudsman expects landlord to handle repairs, for which it is responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion.
The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the Lease, which usually confirms which party is responsible for what repair. However, it is usual that a leaseholder has responsibility for repairs within the demised property, and repairs in communal areas would be the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord’s responsibility for the repair and replacement of the roof is confirmed in its Repair Responsibilities: Shared Owners and Leaseholders guide.
The landlord is therefore expected to investigate reports of a leak thought to be originating from the roof to determine its responsibility for completing repairs and the nature and extent of the repairs required.
Following the resident’s report of 9 July 2019, the landlord recognised its responsibility for the works to the roof and the following day advised the resident that it had raised a job for the leak to be investigated and resolved. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 July 2019 for an update on the repair and was advised that further works had been added to the job raised on 9 July 2019.
On 25 November 2019, five months later, the resident called the landlord as it was evident that the leak had not been resolved. The landlord agreed to contact its contractor to find out what the current situation was with regards to the roof. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any proactive steps to investigate what was happening with the roof repairs prior to that time.
By Mid December 2019, the landlord’s contract with its roofing contractor was terminated and as a result a new contractor had to be appointed, thus adding further to the already delayed repairs to the roof. There is no evidence as to why the contract with the previous roofer had been terminated and again, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any proactive steps to investigate what was happening with the roof repairs nor of it updating the resident as to the current situation at that time.
By February 2020, a further two months later, the landlord was still in the process of allocating the works to its new contractor and on 6 February 2020 it contacted the resident to say that it would provide him with an update no later than 10 February 2020. However, the landlord did not do so until 26 February 2020, two weeks later than it had agreed. The landlord apologised that the repair had not yet been completed and said that the works would start between 8 and 10 March 2020 with a view to having the works completed by 14 March 2020.
However, the works did not start until 2 June 2020, two months later than the date the landlord had told the resident in February 2020. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident between 26 February 2020 and the commencement of the works on 2 June 2020 to provide an update on the works or an explanation for the delay nor a revised timetable. The works were finally completed on 9 June 2020, a total of 11 months after the resident’s report of 9 July 2020.
In its stage one complaint response on 11 June 2020 the landlord explained that the delay was due to its contractor experiencing delays gaining access to erect its scaffolding and that specialist roof tiles needed to be ordered.
The resident reported further leaks on 8 July and 2 August 2020.
The landlord arranged for its new roofing contractor to carry out an inspection of the roof on 12 August 2020. This was an appropriate step to take. In situations where it would seem like repairs undertaken were only offering short-term solutions, a landlord is expected to investigate further, carrying out a more thorough investigation in order to find the root cause and thereby a permanent solution.
The contractor noted that the roof had had multiple repairs previously and that there remained issues with the roof including minimal overlap to the lead aprons, which had also been drilled through. The contractor suggested a joint visit with the landlord’s surveyor and that, due the condition of the roof, a new roof may be the best economical way forward as the building had had roof issues historically that had never been resolved long term. As suggested, the joint visit with the landlord’s surveyor was carried out on 9 September 2020 during which a number of visible defects were identified including defective lead, pointing, cracked tiles and insufficient fixings to coping stones. The surveyor also reported that a previous contractor had claimed that the roof did not have the correct fall and was below standard.
The resident reported further leaks on 19 August 2020.
As there was increasing evidence that the landlord had been unable to find a permanent solution to the leaks from the roof and as the survey commissioned by the landlord had recommended that the roof be replaced, it was appropriate for replacement to be considered at the landlord’s investment panel, which it did on 28 September 2020. The Investment Panel decided that whilst works were needed to the roof, a full roof replacement, under the landlord’s investment budget, was not necessary at that time.
When deciding whether the decision of the Investment panel was fair and proportionate, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence explaining how the landlord made its decision including its consideration of any relevant specialist technical advice.
It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This will enable it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. It cannot properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident. Only limited information was received from the landlord, which did not include significant evidence such as minutes from the panel meeting (which the landlord confirmed had not been taken). The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked and as such has limited this service’s ability to determine this important element of the complaint. This has therefore resulted in a separate determination of record keeping failure by the landlord.
Between October and November 2020, the resident continued to report leaks from the roof and water entering his property. As early as 6 October 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had carried out another inspection of the roof and had found a number of visible defects however the works to address the defects identified had not been carried out at the time of the landlord’s final response over a month later.
While it is evident that the landlord made attempts to investigate and address the repairs required to the roof it was not reasonable for the landlord to take 11 months to carry out the repairs following the resident’s report of 9 July 2019. It was also not reasonable for the landlord to take a further four months to carry out repairs to the roof following the resident’s later report on 8 July 2020. The repairs not being completed until 25 November 2020, after the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
There were long gaps between actions being taken and there is no evidence of the landlord taking any proactive steps to investigate what was happening with the roof repairs at any given time nor of the landlord updating the resident as to the current situation at the time nor the reason for any delays.
In its final response of 9 November 2020, the landlord acknowledged and provided an explanation for the delays in completing the repairs to the roof, these included delays due to ending of its partnership with its original contractor, delays in obtaining specialist roof tiles and issues with the contractor gaining access to erect their scaffolding. The landlord also acknowledged that it should have engaged its surveyor and carried out closer monitoring at an earlier date. The landlord said that the works would be completed within the next four weeks and the works were completed on 25 November 2020, just over two weeks later. The landlord acknowledge the time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident and offered him £400 compensation.
Section 7.1 of the landlord’s compensation policy confirms that the landlord will offer up to a maximum of £400 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience when a resident has been greatly impacted by any failings on its behalf.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance suggests compensation in the range of £250 and £700 for considerable service failure or maladministration. Examples given for this category include a failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, for example, to address repairs and the resident having to repeatedly chase updates, resulting in unreasonable time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident. Having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied the time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident was sufficient to justify a compensation payment at the upper end of this scale and as such, the £400 offered by the landlord is not sufficient to provide reasonable redress to the resident.
The landlord’s actions following the repairs carried out on 25 November 2020 have not been investigated in this report as this service can only consider matters that the landlord has had an opportunity to respond to as a formal complaint, and for which the landlord has issued its final response.
The resident continued to report leaks after 25 November 2020 following which the landlord undertook a number of further surveys. As of 2 August 2021 holding works, to cover the areas of the roof that were allowing ingress, were due to be carried out whilst the roof renewal was still under tender.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to his property caused by leaks from the roof of his property.

Section 4.9 of the landlord’s compensation policy states that residents are expected to take out adequate home contents insurance for their furniture, decoration and personal possessions to insure them against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, burglary and so on. This policy is not intended to replace or compensate for a resident’s lack of home contents insurance.
As the resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the interior of his property, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer him, in the first instance, to his own contents insurance with regards to the damage to his flat, which it did on 15 July 2019. There is no evidence that the resident contacted his insurers at that time.
The issue of insurance was referred to again, almost a year later, in the landlord’s stage one response of 11 June 2020. The landlord again advised that the resident that he would need to claim on his contents insurance for his belongings and the building insurance for any damage to his property. The landlord also advised the resident that if he felt it was liable for the damage to his property he could submit a claim against its insurance. This was appropriate advice by the landlord and there is evidence of the resident then contacting the landlord’s insurers on 16 June 2020. However, in his escalation request of the same date the resident said that he felt that the landlord should carry out the repairs to his flat and did not want to go through all this again with the insurance team.
In its final response, the landlord again appropriately advised the resident that he could submit an insurance liability claim to the landlord’s insurers. The landlord also acted in accordance with Section 9.3 of its compensation policy, by offering to make a contribution towards the resident’s insurance excess, the amount of which would be agreed once the value of the excess was known.
Whilst the landlord may not be responsible for repairs to the interior of the resident’s property, and whilst there may be a limit to what action the landlord could take with regards to any damage to the inside of the resident’s property, there is evidence that in July 2020 the landlord recognised that the water getting into the resident’s electrics and lighting could be a potential risk and as such contacted the resident to make arrangements for his property to be inspected. Whilst this was a reasonable step to take, there is no evidence that any works were carried out to the resident’s property at that time. Following the landlord’s final response there is further evidence of the landlord contacting the resident regarding works to make his property safe. However, with the exception of the wet vac there is no evidence of any further works being carried out within the resident’s flat.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a two stage formal complaints process.
On 19 July 2019, the resident submitted a Web complaint to this service regarding the leak and the damage to his property. This service then wrote to the landlord on 3 October 2019 and 15 November 2019, requesting it respond to the resident concerns about the leak from his roof and damage to his property by way of a formal complaint. On 15 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging his complaint.
The landlord then failed to issue its stage one response until 11 June 2020, some seven months later, significantly exceeding the 10 working day timescale states in the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 June 2020 to confirm that he would like to escalate his complaint to stage two.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage two complaints are to be acknowledged within three working days, with a response provided within the following 15 working days. The landlord again failed to comply with its own complaints policy by not acknowledging the resident’s escalation request until 8 July 2020, 16 days later.
Whilst there was further correspondence the resident and the landlord regarding the leak, by 26 October 2020 the resident had contacted this service again to advise that he had still not received the landlord’s stage two response. Again the landlord was contacted by this service asking that it issue its response within 10 working days.
The landlord wrote to the resident four working days later, to advise that it was not able to respond in full as yet to the resident’s complaint but that it had been progressing a resolution to the leaks. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 9 November 2020, five months after his escalation request of 16 June 2020.
The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling, the maximum allowed for in its complaints policy. Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied however that £100 is sufficient to reflect the level of service failure. This is because:
1. The length of time it took the landlord to provide the resident with its response at both stage one and stage two went significantly beyond what could be considered reasonable, particularly considering the impact the substantive issue was having on the resident.
2. The lack of response by the landlord resulted in the resident having to contact this service on multiple occasions in order to seek assistance with progressing his complaint. This resulted in additional distress and inconvenience to the resident which I am not satisfied was reflected in the landlord’s responses nor in the level of compensation offered.
3. The roof repairs remained outstanding during this time and the landlord’s failure to respond promptly to the resident’s complaint resulted in a missed opportunity to use the complaint process to identify any failings, and to take steps to address and resolve the issues with the roof, at a much earlier stage.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance suggests awards in the region of £50 to £250 where the landlord has failed to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance above, the landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof of his property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damage to his property caused by the leaks from his roof.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was responsible for repairing the roof. There were several lengthy delays in the process, the repairs carried out did not permanently resolve the issue and it did not engage its surveyor, and carried out closer monitoring, much earlier in the process. The landlord offered the resident £400 compensation, the maximum allowed under its compensation policy, for time, trouble, and inconvenience, However, given the extent of the time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident, £400 is not considered sufficient redress to the resident.
It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records regarding its actions and the decisions it makes. This will enable it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide this Service with adequate information to enable us to fully investigate matters referred to us and it has failed to do so in this case. In light of the limited information provided by the landlord in respect of its Investment Panel review on 28 September 2020, this Service finds that the redress is warranted to the resident for the impact the landlord’s record-keeping has had on the fair and thorough investigation of the landlord’s decision not to replace, but to continue repairing, the roof at that time.
The resident is responsible for internal repairs at his property. The landlord acted appropriately by providing the resident with advice and information in regard to making a claim both against his own insurers, and against the landlord’s insurers. The landlord also offered to make a contribution towards the resident’s excess should he make a claim on his own insurance. The landlord took steps to consider what action it could take in response to the resident’s reports and arranged for a wet vac to take place in the resident’s property. Whilst the landlord initially considered whether it could carry out works to the electrics and ceilings in the resident’s property it subsequently advised that, as he was a leaseholder, these works would need to be carry out under the resident’s insurance
The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its own complaints policy, despite repeated contact from this service. The landlord’s failure to respond promptly to the resident’s complaint resulted in a missed opportunity to address and resolve any failings with regards to the roof at a much earlier stage. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation which, given the extent of the complaint handling failures was neither reasonable nor proportionate.

Orders and Recommendation

Orders

That within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,200 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £700 for the time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident as a result of its acknowledged service failures. (This figure is inclusive of the £400 offered by the landlord in its final response)
  2. £250 for its records keeping failures in respect of its Investment Panel review on 28 September 2020.
  3. £250 for its complaint handling failures. This figure is inclusive of the £100 offered by the landlord in its stage two response.

Carry out refresher training with its staff to ensure that future complaints are progressed in a timely manner and in accordance with its complaints policy.
The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

That within 28 days of this determination, and if it has not done so already, the landlord is to ensure that the holding works to cover the areas of the roof that were allowing ingress are completed and that the resident is provided with written confirmation that the works have been completed.
The landlord is to provide the resident with an update as to the progress of the tender and the subsequent roof renewal works.