Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

London Borough of Hillingdon (202012846)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012846

London Borough of Hillingdon

21 October 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of his porch roof. 

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a ground floor maisonette in a property building comprising three other maisonettes.
  2. The landlord has provided records of its communications with the resident. These show that on 29 September 2020, the resident emailed it regarding damage to his porch roof. Within his communication, the resident referred to a recent visit from the landlord’s operative and said that the overflowing gutter above had caused a lot of damage to his porch, resulting in large cracks and water leaks into his property. He said his porch was unsafe; pieces of concrete have fallen, once hitting his young daughter. He advised that the now exposed steel rods were rotting, making the structure dangerous. He said the operative who recently visited confirmed this needed to be fixed as soon as possible as the existing damage would result in further water damage and was a risk to his and his family’s health and safety. He advised that he was disabled.
  3. In a further email sent the same day, the resident sent photos of the internal damage caused. He referred to previous photos sent of the damage to the upstairs external wall which was visibly damp following periods of rain. He said he was very anxious that any further rain/bad weather would result in very dangerous living conditions for them if not fixed ASAP. The resident asked the landlord for an update on the next steps and how this could be fixed.
  4. On 25 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising that the external structure continued to be impacted by the existing damage and rain, which would only increase into winter. He reiterated that when a representative of the landlord visited, they told him that a building surveyor would attend. He reiterated that this was causing water damage internally and putting him and his family in danger. He had spoken to his insurance company regarding internal damage including the door frame which he said now had large cracks in it. This had been caused by external roof problems. The resident said that his insurance company told him that the external damage needed to be repaired first.
  5. On 26 October 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it had arranged for a building surveyor to attend on 28 October 2020 between 8am and 12pm.
  6. On 28 October 2020, the building surveyor attended the property. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the building surveying report produced following this inspection. This said that the concrete porch, that also made up the roof to the ground floor bay window, had dropped and cracked. The cracking has allowed water to get to the internal steel within the roof and porch structure, causing this to corrode and the spalling of the concrete covering. Photos provided by the resident showed that the concrete covering forming the ceiling to the bay window, failed completely earlier in the year, exposing all of the corroded steelwork from underneath. This had been repaired but water was leaking through cracks when it is raining. The concrete over the front door was now failing due to corrosion of the steel reinforcement. Corrosion could also be seen on the steel lintel over the front door, with hairline cracking to the internal plaster. The report recommended:
    1. The lintels over the bay window and front door should be exposed to ascertain the conditions of them. If sound, all corrosion should be cleaned back and treated with a rust inhibitor before making good.
    2. Allow for a specialist concrete repair contractor to attend site and specify remedial works to the porch and bay window roof
    3. Allow to make good all plaster and decoration around the bay window roof and lintels to the bay window and front door.
  7. On 3 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord as he understood the  building surveyor had made recommendations and asked when the work to resolve the problem would begin.  He said the ongoing bad weather was causing more damage and was a risk to him and his family’s health and safety. The landlord replied on the same day advising the resident that it had asked the relevant team for an update and would advise him once it had received a response.
  8. On 4 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord reiterating something needed to be done as soon as possible; another piece of concrete had fallen from the porch roof and nearly hit his daughter that day. The landlord replied on the same day advising that it had raised for an operative to attend to make safe the section of the falling brickwork. The landlord advised it was still waiting for the full report from the surveyor to arrange the necessary works but said it would let him know once these works had been booked in. An operative attended that day to make safe the brickwork.
  9. On 9 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord chasing for an update on when the works would be booked in. He said they had a water leak and damp in their hallway and bedroom which leaked every time it rained. He followed this up with a further email on 10 November 2020.
  10. On 11 November 2020, the landlord advised it had requested an update from the relevant team and would advise him once it had a response.
  11. On 13 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising that he was still awaiting an update. He said another piece of concrete had fallen from the porch roof. He would take this further if he or his family was caused injury.
  12. The landlord responded to the resident on 17 November 2020 advising it was chasing for an update and would get an answer for him shortly. It apologised for the delay and advised that an operative would attend that day to make safe the concrete on the porch, which they did.
  13. On 18 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising an operative had attended the day before to make safe “as best he could”. The resident said the operative explained the problem and said the risk would remain until the issue was addressed. The resident reiterated the cracks and leaks remained. He attached photos.
  14. Later on the same day the resident sent a further email to the landlord advising he had received a voice message advising that repair would start on 5 December 2020. He thanked the landlord but said having then called the landlord he was told a bricklayer had been assigned the work. The resident asked the landlord to provide the details of the recommendations made by the surveyor to fix the porch roof and cracks, make structurally safe and prevent any future leaks. He also asked if the landlord could confirm if the same covering would be put in place like his neighbour has to stop the water getting through again. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication on 19 November 2020 advising it had requested this information from the relevant team and would advise him once it had their response.
  15. On 24 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord asking for information on the planned works to fix his porch and stop any further leaks and damage. He said workmen had arrived that day only to render the porch ceiling under the front door. He said this seemed “odd” as the repairs above had not been completed and so more water will only leak through and cause the same damage. He said  this was “becoming an absolute nightmare” and asked how to escalate the matter.
  16. On 26 November 2020, the landlord replied advising it had chased the matter with the relevant team. It advised him to contact its complaints team to escalate the matter and provided him with the contact details.
  17. On 26 November 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint explaining the external and internal damage to the property, the leaks and falling pieces of concrete. This included water leaking into their bedroom every time it rained. He also set out events up to then including his request for details of the surveyor’s report that he was still waiting for. He said there had been “a real reluctance” to repair the damage and also to identify and fix the cause of the problem. This was unacceptable and he felt “discriminated against” as he was not a council tenant.   He referred to the impact on his health and said that he had had to change his blinds twice in the last six months due to water leaks and damp.  
  18. On 2 December 2020, the landlord acknowledged his complaint and advised that a stage one response would be provided by 16 December 2020.
  19. The landlord has provided a roofing report from its roofing contractor which show they attended the property on 4 December 2020 in respect to an enquiry to: “please install procol system to concrete slab above bay window and front door with return wall to seal”. Under ‘description of work’ the comments were: “Council would like us to liquid coat balcony over front door here….will need single storey handrail running along here…bandage and liquid coat this canopy”. The report included a target date of 4 January 2021.
  20. On 17 December 2020, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response. In its response the landlord said it had considered the resident’s communications, the case notes on file and also reports received from officers regarding the concerns he had raised. It acknowledged his comments that there had been a reluctance to repair the damage to his external porch roof which had cracks and as a result there was a leak through the wall/ceiling cavity. It said in view of his situation, an appointment was made on 5 December 2020 when a temporary repair was carried out.
  21. The landlord said since then it had contacted its roofing contractor to provide a date for when they can begin this work, which it had not received yet. It had asked the Contractor Manager for the Repairs Service to follow this up. It provided their contact details and said the resident could contact them in the meantime. It apologised for not being able to give a date when the work would be undertaken but it could reassure him that it was committed to undertaking the required work and as soon as possible. It said if he was dissatisfied with its response, he could escalate his complaint. It provided details of how to do this.
  22. On 23 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising he was “extremely dissatisfied” with its response. It had not advised him of what works were planned to resolve the problem nor when the work would begin. The response was no better than those received previously. Suggesting that he ask for an update from the landlord’s repair service does not resolve his complaint. The resident said he had shared photos of the damage and condition he and his family were enduring. This was impacting on them financially and was ongoing. It was also impacting on their physical and mental health. He said there was horrible and dangerous damp and mould in their bedroom. The internal damage could not be repaired until the external damage was fixed. He requested that the landlord:
  1. View the pictures and impacts already shared, acknowledge the situation.
  2. Provide a date when works would begin.
  3. Explain what works were planned.
  4. Provide him with a copy of the structural engineer’s report.
  1. On 11 January 2021, the landlord provided a stage two response to the resident confirming it had read through all of the correspondence on file and sought clarification from officers dealing with his case. It acknowledged the outcomes requested by the resident. It said the stage one response confirmed that a temporary repair to his porch roof had been done and that its roofing contractor had been asked to confirm a date for when the full repair was to be undertaken. The full repair was to waterproof the canopy above his front door and bay window using Procol liquid coating. It could advise this was completed on 8 January 2021. It apologised for any inconvenience caused to him and his family for the time taken to complete the repair.
  2. It said that as part of their contract with it, the roofing contractor were required to survey all defects and provide a quote and report which must be authorised before they could carry out any repairs. There was no structural engineer report and no structural engineer needed to attend for his repair. It advised all maintenance service contractor reports were provided with no third-party liability so it was unable to provide this to him. It said it could confirm however that the report only contained the recommendation for the Procol system.  It advised the resident however that he could request this information via a subject access request under the Data Protection Act. It provided contact details of who to send this request to. It advised if he was not satisfied with its response he could refer the complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  3. On 14 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising he was unhappy with its response and with the repair provided. He said the Procol liquid coating used to waterproof the canopy merely covered the cracks and was a temporary fix. He said it did not address the damage or the cause of the damage. He said its maintenance team had suggested the water would continue to build up and it was only a matter of time before the leaking into his bedroom would start again. His insurers would not support an internal fix until the damage/cause was properly fixed. Furthermore, the resident said a structural engineer had attended which was contrary to what its stage two response had said.
  4. On 26 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again chasing a response to his 14 January 2021 email. He said he escalated his complaint to the LGSCO  who had advised they were the wrong ombudsman. He also said new cracks had appeared in their bedroom ceiling. The landlord replied on the same day advising his compalint had been referred to its Complaints Manager. The landlord’s Complaints Manager emailed the resident later that day apologising that he was provided the incorrect details regarding where to escalate his complaint. The Complaints Manager provided the contact details for the Housing Ombudsman. 
  5. The Ombudsman was copied into correspondence between the resident and his insurers in January and February 2021 which the landlord was also copied into. This concerned the internal damage and the cost of getting this repaired.
  6. The resident told the Ombudsman on 8 October 2021 that the landlord had failed to maintain the external porch roof which has resulted in both external and internal damage. He said he believed that the work completed externally was a temporary solution and the landlord has not addressed the structural damage. He also said he had to repair the internal damage at a cost to him, which he felt was unfair.
  7. On 10 October 2021, the landlord told the Ombudsman that the repair was completed on 8 January 2021 however it confirmed that on 1 March 2021, the resident reported a further leak. It said this required a small patch repair of the waterproofing. The landlord provided evidence to this service of its internal communications showing the resident’s report and its attendance to repair the leak however said it had no survey notes or other details. The landlord confirmed that the work was completed on 7 April 2021 and said that no further leaks had been reported.

 

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. This is echoed in the lease which says that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and the block.
  2. In relation to the resident’s dissatisfaction about the cost of rectifying the internal damage at his property, the landlord has not provided to the Ombudsman details of any policy which explains the process for leaseholders to make a claim for internal damage and damage to possessions. However, under the lease, the resident is responsible for internal repairs and therefore leaseholders are usually expected to make a claim on their content insurance in respect to damage caused internally and for damaged possessions. Furthermore, as there is no evidence of the resident raising the matter of the cost he incurred to rectify internal damage during the complaints process, this point has not been investigated.
  3. On 29 September 2020, the resident referred to a previous visit from the landlord regarding water ingress into his property including water leaking through the wall/ceiling cavity, cracks to the internal door frame and pieces of concrete to the exterior falling. He attached photos and asked the landlord for an update on the next steps and how this could be fixed. There is no evidence of any reply from the landlord until 26 October 2020 and this was after the resident had contacted it again on 25 October 2020 to chase the matter. The landlord’s repair policy does not include timescales for repairs. However, bearing in mind the issue was causing damage to the property when it rained and the resident had reported that pieces of concrete were falling from the porch ceiling, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to prioritise this repair. The time taken by the landlord to respond to this issue was unreasonable.
  4. In its 26 October 2020 email, the landlord advised that a building surveyor would attend on 28 October. As this would identify the issues and what works were needed, this was appropriate. This inspection went ahead as scheduled and the building surveyor found that the concrete porch, that also made up the roof to the ground floor bay window, had dropped and cracked and had allowed water to get to the internal steel within the roof and porch structure which had corroded. The surveyor commented in the report that this had caused the concrete forming the ceiling to the bay window, to fail. They said although this had been repaired, water was leaking through the cracks when it rained.  The report made various recommendations. It is unclear when the landlord received this report however it did not share the findings with the resident when he asked about this on several occasions in November 2020 whilst chasing the landlord for a repair to the porch roof.
  5. The landlord did attend twice in November 2020 to secure and make safe sections of brickwork which the resident reported to the landlord had fallen. These were attended to promptly by the landlord which was appropriate. It is also evident that the landlord’s operatives attended the property on 24 November 2020 to render the porch roof above the front door although the resident  immediately raised a concern about this to the landlord as he considered this work to be “odd” as no work to address the damaged porch roof had been undertaken. He said he was concerned more water would only “leak through and cause the same damage”. The landlord did not address the resident’s concern in its next email response. Following the resident raising a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repair on 26 November 2020, in its stage one response, the landlord only advised that its roofing contractor would be undertaking “the required work”- it did not specify the works required or provide any further details. 
  6. Therefore, there was a lack of clarity from the landlord surrounding the findings of the building surveyor and the proposed work to fully rectify the issue in its communications with the resident up to this stage. As the resident had first raised the issue with it more than three months prior, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have identified what repairs were needed and to have provided details of these to the resident. Particularly as the resident had asked on several occasions about the proposed fix and had expressed concerns about the cause of the damage having not been addressed. The landlord’s failure to do so was unreasonable.  
  7. In his stage two escalation request the resident said he was unhappy that the landlord had not explained the work planned to resolve the issue or provided him with the surveyor’s report. In its stage two final response of 11 January 2021, the landlord explained that the full repair was to waterproof the canopy above his front door and bay window using a Procol liquid coating. It said this work was completed on 8 January 2021. The landlord said it did not have a structural engineer report as no structural engineer was needed to attend for his repair. It said its roofing contractor had surveyed the defect and whilst it could not provide this report as all maintenance service contractor reports are provided with no third-party liability, it could confirm that this report only contained the recommendation for the Procol system. The second roofing report provided by the landlord to this service shows its contractor had inspected the property on 4 December 2020 however it is clear from the comments in the report that the inspection was specific to the landlord’s request for the contractor to apply the Procol waterproof system to porch surface above bay window and front door. Due to this and because there was a building surveying report that had made three different recommendations, the landlord’s suggestions that only the Procol system had been recommended to resolve the defect with the porch roof and that there was no surveyor’s report, were misleading.
  8. It is noted that the resident told the landlord on 14 January 2021 that he was unhappy with its final response and with the repair provided. He said the Procol liquid coating used to waterproof the canopy merely covered the cracks and was a temporary fix. He disagreed that it addressed the damage to the porch roof which was causing the cracks and said he thought the leaking into his bedroom would start again. He also disputed its comment that a structural engineer had not attended. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has told this service that following a further report of a leak from the resident on 1 March 2021, it repaired a small patch of the waterproofing on 7 April 2021.
  9. Therefore, the landlord has shown that it inspected the porch roof following the resident’s reports of damage and provided a temporary fix by way of repairing cracking. It also made safe sections of brickwork when it received reports of this falling and it provided a repair by way of installing a weatherproof coating to the surfaces. However, there is no evidence of the landlord following the recommendations in the building surveyor report dated 28 October 2020 which included: an examination of the lintels over the bay window and front door; a specialist concrete repair contractor to attend site and specify remedial works to the porch and bay window roof and; making good all plaster and decoration around the bay window roof and lintels to the bay window and front door. Therefore, on balance the landlord has not provided a full repair to the damage to the resident’s porch roof. In the circumstances, an order has been included below for the landlord to carry out the works recommended in the surveyor’s report or if there is a reason for it not following the recommendations, provide an explanation to the Ombudsman and the resident for this. 
  10. As previously mentioned, the landlord failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the repairs needed to address the problem with the porch roof following the surveyor’s inspection. The resident contacted the landlord about this on a number of occasions whilst expressing concern about the risk of further damage being caused whilst it remained outstanding as well as the safety risks. On each occasion the landlord said it would chase the repair and let him know however it failed to do so meaning the resident had to continue contacting the landlord to chase the matter. This happened on 3, 11, 17 ,19 and 26 November 2020. This caused a delay with progressing a resolution to the problem. The landlord did not acknowledge these issues in its complaints process nor provide any redress for the delays or inadequate communication.   Furthermore, as mentioned above, in its stage two review response, the landlord provided inaccurate information regarding the recommendations that had been made to fully repair the roof as well as the existence of its surveyor’s report. It also provided incorrect details for the Ombudsman causing further delay for the resident. In the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £400 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by the lack of a full repair provided and its poor communication with the resident regarding this. This figure reflects the number of failings when handling the resident’s reports of damage to his roof and the impact of these on the resident and distress caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s reports about the condition of his porch roof. 

Reasons

  1. The landlord provided temporary repairs following the resident’s reports of damage to the porch roof reported by the resident however it did not follow the recommendations in the surveyor’s report.  The landlord also failed to share with the resident the surveyor’s findings on the cause of the damage or the recommendations they made. There were delays in the landlord’s communications with the resident following his reports and inaccurate information was also included in the landlord’s stage two final response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £400 for the failures in communication and delays which impacted on progressing a resolution to the damaged porch roof.
    2. Arrange for the works recommended in the surveyor’s report of 28 October 2020 to be carried out confirming the timescale for this to the resident within four weeks. Alternatively if there is a reason for the landlord not following the recommendations, provide an explanation to the Ombudsman and the resident for this. 
    3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.