Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (201912638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912638

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

4 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, causing damage to his ceilings.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder.
The property is a two-bedroom flat located on the second floor.
The property is a new build property and as such, was still under guarantee with the National House Building Council (NHBC).

Scope

It is often the case that the Ombudsman will investigate the matter complained about, and the landlord’s handling of this, only up until the landlord’s final response. This is as the Ombudsman expects the landlord to use its final response as an opportunity to either reaffirm its position (where it has found no service failures), or to acknowledge its failing and to propose reasonable measures to put things right (if it has not done so already).
In this instance, however, while the landlord recognised the resident’s ongoing issue in February 2020, the resolution was unclear. The Ombudsman has therefore considered it appropriate to expand the scope of this investigation, in order to consider when the landlord was able to put in place a suitable solution, whether this was undertaken, and how this was managed. As the landlord was given the opportunity to review its position at a later time, upon (partial) completion of the repair works, and to offer a further final response, the Ombudsman has taken the decision to investigate all events up until this time.
Moreover, along with the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the roof leak, he has also advised this Service that he experienced issues with:
1. A missing window on the landing at the top of the stairwell, which was raised as a complaint by another resident;
2. A faulty carpark fob;
3. A defective communal front door; and
4. A £500 end of year adjustment fee which he states he has not been reimbursed for.
While the Ombudsman has made note of these matters, these will not be assessed or commented on within this investigation. This is as the Ombudsman cannot see that these concerns formed part of the resident’s original complaint, or that they were ever formally raised with the landlord (by the resident) as separate complaints.
Under paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
As such, it would be unfair for this Service to comment on the handling of each matter, without having been brought to the landlord’s attention in the first instance, and without the landlord having fair opportunity to consider each issue under its process.

Summary of events

On 31 December 2018 the resident reported that his roof may be in need of repair, as wet patches began to form on his bedroom and bathroom ceiling. The Ombudsman can see that this was reported again on 13 February 2019.
The resident’s notes and call records suggest that he chased this repair on several occasions between January 2019 and July 2019. He notes that a further report was made in September 2019 in which the landlord was advised that water had begun to resurface on his ceilings.
On 11 October 2019 the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of this.
The Ombudsman can see, nonetheless, that the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 October 2019. It suggested that the resident had first reported the roof repair in February 2019 and noted that works were still outstanding. The landlord advised that it would liaise with its contractor to establish a timeframe for works to be completed and relay this back to the resident.
On 18 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. He explained that the last he had heard, the matter had been escalated to the Operations Team who were in talks with a new contractor to complete the works. He questioned whether he still needed to await a call from the Operations Team or whether an update on timescales for the repair could be offered at this time.
On 21 October 2019 the landlord explained that it would regularly update the resident where possible. It advised that as a new build, the roof repair was still under a 12-year guarantee with NHBC and so any works undertaken by its responsive repair team would break the guarantee. Its contractors were therefore trying to arrange for the original construction team to carry out the repairs.
The Ombudsman can see that following an inspection of the resident’s property on 5 November 2019, he chased an update however was advised that the inspecting officer was on long-term sick leave.
On 17 November 2019 the resident informed the landlord that he wished to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. The landlord agreed on the following day that although it had 28 days to attempt to resolve the resident’s stage one concerns (and this was not until 26 November 2019), a resolution was not in sight. It therefore confirmed that the matter would be escalated to stage two.
The landlord issued the resident with an acknowledgement on 19 November 2019. It noted:
1. Following his complaint, it immediately contacted its contractors who advised that the issue may be a design fault and so should be covered under the buildings guarantee. This presented a few issues however, such as contacting the original developers and establishing their availability.
2. It had been explored with the Property Desk Manager whether the works could be initiated rather than arranging this with the developers. An officer was subsequently sent out on 5 November 2020 to inspect the roof and see what could be done. The landlord stated that it had since been waiting for an outcome.

The landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been passed to a senior member of staff who would seek to find a suitable solution under stage two of its process.

On 29 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update on his complaint. It explained that as its surveyor had taken long-term sick leave, and it was unable to obtain the previous report, it had arranged for the local Repairs Officer to re-inspect his property to enable it to submit a claim to NHBC. This inspection was arranged for 3 December 2019.
The Ombudsman can see (from the landlord’s internal emails) that the Repairs Officer identified water damage to the living room, bedroom, and bathroom ceilings. An action plan was put together to carry out repairs and to use stain block on all affected areas once works were completed and ceilings dried.
The landlord explained to the resident, on 11 December 2019, that the Repairs Officer had confirmed that the leak was from the flat roof and that this had been referred to the Complex Team in order to proceed with the NHBC claim. It explained that it intended to arrange a further independent inspection to establish what needed to be done.
On 19 December 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that the issue had worsened. The resident attached images in which the damp patches in the dining room had enlarged and there was now water coming through the light in the bathroom. He said that this was a major concern, especially as there was now a possible electrical issue. He added that as he was planning to travel for Christmas, he was concerned about leaving the property in this condition with no one to manage the severity and potential damage occurring. He noted that almost a year had passed since his initial complaint and no progress had been made.
The landlord confirmed for the resident on the following day that it would continue to chase and liaise with the relevant team to ensure that the matter was treated with urgency. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration and distress and expressed that it was determined to have the matter resolved.
On 21 December 2019 the resident advised the landlord that water had now started coming into the lounge (a picture was provided). It was advised that this was now the fourth room in the flat where this was happening, meaning that most of the property had been affected.
On 3 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to highlight that there was still no sign of resolution. He advised that he would be contacting the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) and requested that the landlord provide him with a final written response to confirm that he had exhausted its process.
The landlord explained that ordinarily, a complaint response would not be provided until it was in a position to close the complaint however, as it had been unable to do this, the resident’s case would be presented to its Panel of Directors to determine a response on 10 January 2020. A formal response would be provided after this time.
On 11 January 2020 the resident chased an update on the findings of the meeting. As no response was received, HOS contacted the landlord on 28 January 2020 and encouraged it to issue its final response.
On 13 February 2020 the landlord provided the resident with its final response. It provided a summary of the events that had taken place following the resident’s initial complaint and acknowledged that it had been unable to offer the resident an update, as it had proposed to, following the directors panel. The landlord advised that an action plan had been put together nonetheless, and that an Independent Principal Designer had since been appointed to attend the property on 10 February 2020 to draw up a detailed specification of the works that needed to be carried out. All residents in the building would also be advised on the planned works to go ahead.
The landlord acknowledged that at stage one, it had delayed in confirming receipt of the resident’s complaint. It also noted that while the Complaints Officer had made frequent contact, he was unable to provide the resident with details on how his outstanding repair was being handled. It recognised that the length of time taken to resolve the matter resulted in the complaint being escalated and also that communication levels had dropped following the resident’s escalation request. The landlord explained that in recognition of this, it would compensate the resident with:
1. £250 for the failure of service
2. £250 for the time and trouble; and
3. £30 for its poor complaint handling.

The landlord advised that the resident’s case would now be closed.

The resident’s notes suggest that he was visited on 10 February 2020 by an electrician to assess the safety of his bathroom light fitting. He noted that this visit was unannounced.
On 1 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He explained that while he appreciated the landlord’s final response, he was concerned that it offered no proposed solution to address the leak. He stated that he had made contact and been advised that he would be called back, however this did not happen. He requested that the landlord make contact with him as he now felt more neglected than ever, with his case being “closed”. The resident also clarified that he had first raised the suspected leak in December 2018 and not February 2019.
The resident’s partner followed this up with an email on 14 March 2020, after a telephone call to the landlord on 12 March 2020, to express further dissatisfaction with the support and lack of contact. She requested a call as a matter of urgency.
On 4 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to establish whether any works were planned to repair his roof. He stated that a number of inspections of his ceiling and roof had taken place just before lockdown, but nothing further had been undertaken.
Although there was no response, on 25 June 2020 the resident advised that an electrician had visited his property (on 11 June 2020). He questioned whether any further progress had been made to arrange a date for a roof repair.
It appears that the resident’s property was also inspected by the landlord’s contractor and the developers in June 2020.
On 20 July 2020 the resident chased an update, explaining that following the inspections in June 2020, he was advised that a report would be submitted with suggested works. He stated that he had heard nothing back on how the situation would be progressed.
The landlord’s repair records suggest that it planned to fit tarpaulin on the resident’s roof on or around July 2020. It is unclear to the Ombudsman whether this was done, however.
On 4-5 August 2020 the green roof at the resident’s property was removed. The landlord’s contractors undertook a leak detection test on the roof on the following day (6 August 2020).
The Ombudsman has seen the report provided by the leak detection team and while no active leak was identified on attendance, several areas for repair and remedial works were identified.
On 7 August 2020 the resident’s record shows that he contacted the landlord to request that an electrician attend the property as water was now streaming out of his dining room light fitting. The Ombudsman can see that as the resident was away over the following two days (the weekend) and the landlord was unable to arrange this for the next working day, this was scheduled for 17 August 2020.
The resident’s partner wrote to the landlord on 13 August 2020. She stated:
1. She had contacted NHBC who had suggested that they had not been informed of the issue until June 2020. This was contrary to the landlord’s earlier suggestion that it had reached out to NHBC to report the issue in November 2019. She believed that they had been lied to.
2. While they were aware that the leak detection would be an inspection of the ceilings and roof to determine where the leaks were forming, they were not advised that the contractors required use of the bathroom taps for 6 hours non-stop (attaching a hose from the bathroom tap to the roof).
3. Whilst the contractors were present, due to the lag in the water making its way from the roof and through the ceiling, little was established. Two hours after their departure, however, water began to pour through several parts of the ceilings across the property. The amount of water damage had now doubled.
4. The pool of water left sitting on the rooftop had to be cleared by the leak detection team on the following day, but the movement of this water made the situation worse.
5. Due to the green roof being removed, the water had been pouring through rapidly. She stated that this was still ongoing and while she and the resident had planned to be away for a few days, she now had to reconsider due to potential issues that could arise in their absence.
6. Due to the lack of response and support, the resident was now arranging to sell the property. This had been redecorated during the lockdown period but was now damaged again as a result of the recent leak. She explained that the resident was unable to put the property on the market due to the continued issue.

The resident’s partner requested contact as a matter of urgency.

On 14 August 2020 the landlord apologised for not making contact with the resident. It explained:
1. Quotes were still being sought for the repair of the roof. It advised that it had questioned (with NHBC and the developer) whether there were any temporary measures that could be taken while the roof was vulnerable to prevent any further leaks. The landlord stated that it would provide the resident with an update as soon as a decision had been made.
2. While it acknowledged that the communication from the contractor regarding the green roof being peeled back and the leak detection work could have been better, an apology had been given for this.
3. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration, however explained that she had not been lied to. It was advised that it took time to put forward the claim as this was not a single claim but related to multiple issues and properties in the development. When the resident was informed that a claim would be made, this was an indication of its intention. The landlord explained that it would be meeting with NHBC to discuss the number of latent defects across the scheme. It stated that it was dealing with the warranty claims via NHBC and the original developer and so would keep the resident up to date.
4. It would put right the damage caused by its investigation work. It advised that it was trying to resolve matters, and while it had been slowed by COVID-19, things were now progressing.
While acknowledging that the process was lengthy, the resident’s partner made a further report that there was still a constant flow of water into the flat. She explained that this was causing her anxiety and she now had to purchase buckets to contain the flow of water from the expected rainfall. She requested daily updates on the progress. She added, in a separate email, that as an electrician had not been scheduled until 17 August 2020, there was no confirmation that she and the resident were living in a safe space.
The Ombudsman can see that the electrician did attend on 17 August 2020.
On 25 August 2020 the resident reported a further leak. He emphasised that now that the green roof had been removed, he was even more exposed than ever and had heard nothing since the leak detection had taken place. He sought reassurance that he would not have to live in the condition he had been for much longer. He explained that due to the rainfall, things had significantly worsened.
In a separate message, on 27 August 2020 the resident advised that it was again raining, and that water had been coming through three separate parts of the ceiling. He wished to know where things were at in relation to the repair and whether anything could be done to temporarily fix the issue.
On 28 August 2020 the resident’s records suggest that the roof was inspected, and he was informed that works would take place on 3 September 2020. Still, no temporary fix was put in place.
On 6 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He advised that works had been completed to a section of his roof and since then he had not had any further water leaks. He requested that the operative share its recommendations with the landlord as soon as possible so that the internal decoration work could commence. He noted that he had previously been advised that a drying out period of 6 weeks would have to be observed in the first instance.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 September 2020 and advised that it would recommend that dehumidifiers were installed in order to aid drying.
On 23 September, 27 September and 2 October 2020 the resident / resident’s partner wrote to the landlord to chase the dehumidifiers. The Ombudsman cannot see that there was a response until 2 October 2020. The resident was advised that these would be delivered on the following day. This was again chased on the following day and dehumidifiers eventually delivered on 5 October 2020.
On 14 October 2020 the resident confirmed that the ceiling appeared to be as dry as possible, with little water being drawn from the dehumidifier. Arrangements were therefore made to begin the internal redecoration of his property. This was completed on 22/23 October 2020.
On 26 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He stated, now that the repair to the roof and ceiling had been completed, he wished to revisit the compensation offer. He explained that he had not accepted the previous offer as there was no guarantee that the problem would be resolved at that time. He noted that since the landlord’s response, matters had been far worse. He stated:
1. The ceiling had continually worsened.
2. Extensive damage was caused by the leak detection task.
3. 6 hours of continual running water during the leak detection had resulted in high costs.
4. The damage had spread to areas of the flat which had been newly decorated.
5. There were electricity costs for the running of three dehumidifiers for 12 days, during the drying out period following the roof repair.
6. There was a delay in undertaking the repairs. This also affected his ability to sell the property, and to purchase a new home while government incentives were in place.

The resident explained that he was forced to buy buckets and a damp meter and provided receipts for these. He also provided the landlord with receipts for his water and electricity bills and explained that the compensation previously offered did not “begin to scratch the surface as an adequate level of compensation”.

On 12 November 2020 the resident’s partner wrote to the landlord reporting that water was coming through the bathroom ceiling. She stated that when the landlord’s contractors had mapped out the areas which needed patching, they were unable to access the roof above the bathroom as the green roof had not been fully removed. Therefore, the leak detection was not undertaken in this area. She stated that she had explained to the contractors that the initial report, made in December 2018, related to a bathroom ceiling leak and that this had not been addressed. It was advised, however, that the leak detection and patching could only be undertaken for the areas that had been stripped. She expressed dissatisfaction as the ceiling had been redecorated and the property put up for sale, however this had been affected by the now reoccurring leak. She therefore requested that a date be set for the rest of the green roof to be fully stripped, an inspection of the roof to identify potential areas which could cause a further leak, and that the areas be patched up.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal emails that on learning that the repair was only partially completed, it expressed surprise with its contractor, also noting that the resident had originally reported water ingress in the bathroom.
The resident reminded the landlord of his experience on 27 November 2020 and explained that as well as seeking to establish when the next set of works would take place, he also wished to have his compensation claim reviewed.
It appears that the resident spoke with the landlord on the phone on 30 November 2020 in which, according to the resident’s later correspondence, he was informed that his case would be revisited. The Ombudsman can see that the resident chased this on 26 January 2021.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It noted that following its repair which had not fully resolved the water ingress, a condition survey had been undertaken (on 7 January 2021) and quotes obtained to redress the waterproof membrane of the roof. This had been undertaken in conjunction with the original developer and would not be recharged to the leaseholders.
In relation to the resident’s request to have his complaint reviewed, the landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2021. It advised that it would not increase the level of compensation offered in recognition of his complaint. The resident was therefore re-referred to HOS.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s later records that the roof / leak is still an ongoing issue. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has since moved out of his property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, causing damage to his ceilings.

It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the arrangement of repairs to the roof. The Ombudsman notes that, as this was a structural defect impacting several properties within the development, and the property was still under guarantee, the landlord took the decision to achieve repairs via NHBC and the original developers.
Where roof repairs are concerned, and where there is a significant impact on a resident, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to ensure that remedial works are arranged promptly and completed within a reasonable length of time. What is reasonable in the circumstances will depend on the scale of the work and the timeframes set out under the landlord’s repair policy.
While the landlord suggested that the resident had first brought the roof defect to its attention in February 2019, both its repair records and a call log provided by the resident demonstrate that this was in fact raised six weeks earlier on 31 December 2018.
An inspection of the issue and/or works therefore should have commenced soon after this time. Under the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord should acknowledge and respond to routine repair requests within 28 calendar days or, where the matter is considered to be a major repair, within three months. Despite several prompts from the resident, however, the Ombudsman cannot see that any steps were taken by the landlord within this timeframe or that there was any communication to manage the resident’s expectation. The landlord therefore failed to uphold its responsibility in this regard.
Although it logged the resident’s report, the landlord has offered no evidence that it took this seriously in late 2018, or at any point in 2019 prior to the resident’s complaint in October 2019. Instead, the landlord allowed 10 months to pass before acknowledging that works remained outstanding. Contrary to good practice, this was not until the resident submitted a complaint.
While the landlord advised, on 17 October 2019, that it would liaise with its contractors to confirm the timescale for repair and would share this with the resident, the Ombudsman cannot see that this happened. The resident was given no indication of when the roof would be addressed or whether temporary works could be undertaken in the meantime to manage the leak.
It was reasonable that the landlord explained its difficulty, with the property being under guarantee, and that it therefore sought for the original developers to undertake the works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord should have done more to manage the resident’s expectation with regards to how long this process would take and what could be done to manage the ongoing issue in the meantime, for example a temporary repair. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered this information in early 2019.
Despite advising that it was exploring whether works could be initiated away from the developers, and undertaking an inspection on 5 November 2019, the landlord shared no details of its findings or whether intervening works by its own team could go ahead. This was unreasonable. The Ombudsman can see that the resident subsequently chased the landlord for an update however was unable to obtain the findings of the inspection, and the landlord’s subsequent decision, due to a staff absence.
As well as failing to manage the resident’s issue and expectations here, there was also a clear record keeping issue. Landlords are expected to appropriately record and retain all notes / reports pertaining to a resident’s repair to enable the smooth progression of matters and access by all permitted parties. It is clear to the Ombudsman, however, that the landlord did not have such a system in place, resulting in an inability to access the inspection report and further delaying the resident in achieving resolution.
While the landlord did arrange for a second inspection (on 3 December 2019) and explained to the resident that the issue had been referred to the Complex Team, there was still no suggested resolution and the action plan, communicated internally amongst staff, was never shared with the resident. This was a missed opportunity to keep the resident updated and to manage his expectations.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to manage and respond to the resident’s leaking ceiling at this time. Due to gaps in the records provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to identify the frequency in which the resident experienced and reported internal leaks between December 2018 and September 2019. The Ombudsman notes, however, that in September 2019, the landlord was advised that the leak had reoccurred, and no action was taken.
The Ombudsman can see that on 19 and 21 December 2019 the resident advised the landlord that the leak had worsened, with four rooms in the property suffering from water ingress. Despite advising the resident that the matter would be treated with urgency, however, nothing was done. While the Ombudsman accepts, as the landlord explained, that intervention may have voided its guarantee, greater consideration should have been given to the resident’s situation and the impact on his property. An alternative solution should have been sought, such as decanting the resident, if no action was to be taken until such time that the issue could be fully resolved. The Ombudsman notes that the resident expressed concern for his safety, yet there is no evidence that the landlord offered him reassurance.
As the resident had reported water coming through the light fixture in the bathroom (in December 2019), the Ombudsman would have also expected the landlord to have arranged for an electrician to attend the resident’s property at the earliest opportunity. It is unclear whether the landlord considered this to be an emergency repair. In any case, the landlord’s records suggest that it was not until February 2020 that an electrician finally attended the resident’s property and, according to the resident, this was unannounced. This was contrary to both the landlord’s emergency repair and routine repair timescales.
It was fair that within its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not been able to provide the resident with sufficient information on how his repair was progressing. The landlord also noted that the matter had been ongoing for more than a year. It subsequently made an offer of compensation in recognition of this, which was appropriate.
In the Ombudsman’s view and in light of the omissions above, however, the landlord’s offer of compensation was insufficient in adequately recognising its failure to act in accordance with its repair policy, its failure to provide an interim solution for the resident, its poor management of the resident’s expectations, and the level of inconvenience and distress which would have been experienced. While the landlord’s compensation policy does range in amounts from £250-£500 (where there has been a failure in service lasting more than six months) and offers the same range to account for “Time and Trouble” during a similar period, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have awarded the resident an amount towards the furthest end of these ranges. This would have more fairly recognised the resident’s experience up until this time.
Furthermore, although the Ombudsman expects the landlord to offer compensation where suitable, greater priority should have been given to putting things right. The Ombudsman appreciates that, as the landlord was working with third parties to resolve the matter, and was arranging for multiple defects to be addressed under its claim, it found difficulty in offering a quick turnaround time. Nonetheless, the landlord should have set out and shared its plan of action to resolve the roof (enabling it to manage the resident’s expectation), and its intended action to stop/manage the internal leak to improve the resident’s living situation (whether this be via a decant or action to dry/address the ceilings temporarily).
Although it was appropriate to advise that an Independent Principal Designer would be attending to map out the works that were needed, this still offered the resident no resolution or idea of the timescale that each party was working to. The resident was also offered no assurance that internal (decorative) works would be undertaken to put him back in the position he was in. The Ombudsman has therefore considered the landlord’s final response to be unsatisfactory. The resident did highlight on 1 March 2020 that no solution had been proposed to resolve the internal impact and that he felt neglected, however despite bringing this to the landlord’s attention, the Ombudsman cannot see that any arrangements were made.
Moreover, although the landlord offered its final response in February 2020, the Ombudsman notes that it was not until September/October 2020 that the roof was partially resolved, and the resident’s ceilings were treated/decorated. It therefore would have been reasonable, following the resident’s request, for the landlord to have reviewed its position and the compensation previously offered, noting that there was still some works to be done to the resident’s bathroom ceiling. This would have enabled the landlord to recognise the resident’s experience over the months which followed its February 2020 response, and to consider any further omissions. The Ombudsman can see that the resident attempted to prompt the landlord to do so on 26 October 2020, and further on 27 November 2020, 30 November 2020 and 26 January 2021, however it failed to take the opportunity and instead re-referred the resident to this Service on 10 February 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was inappropriate, a missed opportunity and contrary to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (to be fair, put things right, and to learn from outcomes).
In the Ombudsman’s view, had the landlord offered the resident’s case a review at this time, it could have noted and had the opportunity to put right several additional failures which had occurred after its response in February 2020.
As early as March 2020, the Ombudsman can see that frequent attempts were made by the resident and his partner to obtain an update on when the roof works would commence (and in the months following up until June 2020), however the communication was unsatisfactory and little clarity was provided by the landlord.
Furthermore, where communication was concerned, the landlord failed to advise the resident on what the leak detection at his property would entail. While it accepted this, and had (allegedly) offered the resident an apology, there was no recognition of the inconvenience this caused for the resident on the day (in occupying his home /bathroom for several hours) and no offer to reimburse the resident for the water costs.
The landlord failed to recognise the damage caused to the resident’s property, following the removal of the green roof and in the aftermath of the leak detection. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord’s contractors returned to the property to clear the water on the roof, however no action was taken to address or manage the additional internal damage sustained to the resident’s property at this time.
Adding to this, despite reporting concerns that water had leaked into the light fixture again on 7 August 2020, the landlord failed to arrange an electrician to undertake an inspection until 17 August 2020. Given the concerns raised by the resident regarding safety, and general good practice, this should have been arranged for the next working day. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s 10-day delay was inappropriate.
It was unreasonable that, despite continued reports in August 2020 that the water ingress had doubled, no temporary fix was put in place. Despite the significant length of time that had passed since raising the matter, on 14 August 2020 the landlord advised that it was still seeking to establish whether temporary measures could be taken to prevent further leaks and it was not until 3 September 2020 that any works begun.
Furthermore, although the landlord had confirmed that dehumidifiers would be installed on 14 September 2020, the resident had to chase the landlord, on many occasions, to arrange this. Given the circumstances, this was unacceptable. There was also no attempt made to reimburse the resident for the costs of using the dehumidifiers, despite his report that it had resulted in a higher energy cost.
Finally, the landlord failed to acknowledge that whilst the resident had raised his concerns with his bathroom (and bedroom) in December 2018, the leak in this area of his property had not been resolved. He subsequently suffered a further leak in November 2020. This was unacceptable. Due to the gaps in the landlord’s records, the Ombudsman is unable to determine why the landlord’s contractors had not fully removed the green roof, not undertaken sufficient testing for this area of the property, and had not implemented a sufficient fix to prevent recurrence.
Upon learning of the further leak, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s distress and inconvenience, and to have assured the resident (promptly) that the matter would be addressed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated empathy and understanding for the situation, particularly as it was aware that the resident was in the process of selling his property, and that this would have caused further disruption. The Ombudsman cannot see that any of this was done, however.
Despite requesting details of when the works would take place to rectify matters on 12 November 2020, the Ombudsman cannot see that there was any response. As a result of the lack of communication, the resident had to chase this again on 27 November 2020 and it was not until 2 February 2021, following an inspection on 7 January 2021, that the landlord advised of the steps it was taking. In light of all of the above, there was maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint in line with the complaints policy in place at the time of the dissatisfaction being raised. This sets out a two-stage process, but suggests that the landlord may refer matters to its panel of directors where this is deemed necessary.
The landlord’s complaints policy explains that where a resident is dissatisfied with the way in which their complaint is being handled the matter can be escalated to the next stage.
While the Ombudsman accepts this, the landlord should still attempt to provide a complaint response in order to set out its position and its intention. The Ombudsman has seen that on 17 November 2019, following a request from the resident that the landlord escalate his complaint to the next stage, the landlord agreed to do so without having provided a stage one response. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord explained it would do so as it was no closer to offering resolution, it would have been more appropriate to advise the resident that consideration at stage one was required before the matter would be escalated, as per its process. This would have offered the landlord the full (28 day) period to understand and respond to the resident’s concerns within a reasonable amount of time, to acknowledge any failures up until this time, and to demonstrate that a solution was being sought. The landlord missed the opportunity to do so.
In addition, it was inappropriate that at stage two, the landlord failed to offer a complaint response, and within good time. Under its policy, the landlord should attempt to investigate and resolve the resident’s complaint, before offering detailed communication to the resident. Where the resident remains unhappy with the stage two solution, the landlord may refer the matter to its panel.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord offered the resident no stage two response but instead advised, after two months had passed, that the resident’s complaint would be referred to its panel of directors and responded to by 10 January 2020. This was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s process. Adding to this, despite the landlord’s new deadline for its response, it failed to honour the new timeframe. It was only once this Service had intervened and encouraged the landlord to provide its final response, on 28 January 2020, that the resident was provided with written communication on 13 February 2020.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did, within its complaint response, acknowledge that its management of the resident’s complaint had not been appropriate. It subsequently made an offer of compensation (£30) in recognition of this failure in service. While it was appropriate to do so, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s offer was insufficient in recognising the aforementioned oversights.
The Ombudsman would expect landlords to offer residents more than a one stage complaints process, to provide the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s initial response, and for landlords to consider – at a second stage – any errors / oversights that require correcting, and ensure that a fair outcome has been achieved. As the landlord took the decision to escalate the matter straight to its panel, however, the resident was not given an opportunity to engage with it on its decision.
This highlights yet another reason why it therefore would have been reasonable, in the spirit of good complaint handling, to have offered a second complaint response, when the opportunity arose. This was more so necessary as the landlord had been unable to provide sufficient information, within its February 2021 response, of how it proposed to resolve matters and there was still some uncertainty surrounding this. Had the landlord offered a further response in February 2021, it may have been able to clearly set out how it planned to respond to the works remaining to the roof and the resident’s bathroom, and/or made an offer of compensation to acknowledge the further inconvenience (as well as the other matters). Its failure to do so was unsatisfactory.
Finally, the Ombudsman would expect (as is advised in the current Complaint Handling Code) landlord’s to keep full records of complaints, including the original complaint; any correspondence with the resident or other parties; and any reports or surveys prepared. It is clear, however, that the landlord failed to do this. The Ombudsman has noted several gaps in the evidence provided by the landlord and has been unable to view the resident’s original complaint as this has not been shared by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, causing damage to his ceilings.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The above determinations have been arrived at as:
1. There was a significant failure to respond to and resolve the resident’s repair needs, within a reasonable amount of time. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord had sought to arrange the roof repair through a third party, it still had a responsibility to support the resident, manage the resident’s expectations, and to actively seek prompt resolution. In review of the evidence provided, however, it does not appear that this was done.

Contrary to the landlord’s repair policy and general good practice, the landlord provided no indication that the resident’s repair need was being taken seriously until he raised a complaint about the outstanding matter. Still, the landlord was slow in arranging its inspections, the appropriate tests needed to begin works, and in undertaking remedial works.

It is unclear why the landlord had not sought a temporary solution to support the resident in protecting his property / belongings, and to improve his living situation. In any case, this was unacceptable. Despite several reports of worsening conditions and water ingress in almost every room in the resident’s property, the landlord failed to provide intervention and was unable to reassure the resident that it was making every effort to find a solution.

While the landlord should have maintained communication with the resident throughout this time, particularly given the distress suffered by the resident (and his partner), the landlord failed to do so. This therefore resulted in the resident expending a significant amount of time chasing the landlord for updates and for clarity on what the next steps would entail, whether any were being taken, and the likely timeline for repair. Despite the resident expressing that he felt neglected, the landlord did little to change this perception.

Although the landlord’s offer of compensation fell short, it was appropriate that it acknowledged some of its initial failures in service. Under the same lens, however, the landlord should have re-examined its service when the opportunity to do so arose (and upon the resident’s request). Given that there were several issues which took place in the lead up to this (and following its final response), reflecting on its service / the resident’s experience would have offered the landlord the opportunity to consider whether its initial response was fair, and also to consider any omissions which may have occurred since. Its refusal to take this opportunity was contrary to good practice and, in light of the adverse impact, inappropriate.

The Ombudsman cannot categorically determine whether this, as the resident suggested, was the driving factor in the resident’s decision to sell the property and move away from the landlord. The Ombudsman does appreciate, however, that the resident’s inability to enjoy his property over such a significant length of time, and the lack of support from the landlord, would have been a contributing factor.

The landlord’s failed to act in accordance with its complaints policy and subsequently failed to offer the resident an appropriate complaint handling process. Along with depriving the resident of a two-stage process, the landlord also delayed in offering its response. This not only delayed the resident in bringing his complaint to HOS for investigation, it also deprived the resident of the opportunity to challenge the landlord and to have his continued dissatisfaction responded to formally. Had the landlord offered more than one stage, particularly where the resident expressed further concern that no solution had been offered to address his internal leak, it would have been able to offer the resident some reassurance that this too would be addressed and/or begun making arrangements. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was done, however.

The Ombudsman appreciates that compensation was offered for the landlord’s initial mismanagement of the resident’s complaint, however this was insufficient in recognising the extent of the failure. What’s more, it was inappropriate that the landlord refused (as suggested above) to take the opportunity to reconsider the resident’s complaint and experience as a whole, before re-referring him to HOS. It is clear that the landlord did not seek to proportionately resolve all elements of the complaint, before suggesting that the resident seek support from the Ombudsman Service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the severe maladministration, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to make the following payment, totalling £2,000:
1. The landlord should increase the initial compensation awarded to the resident in February 2020 from £250 to £500 to account for the failure in service between December 2018 to February 2020
2. The landlord should increase the initial compensation awarded to the resident in February 2020 from £250 to £500 to account for the time and trouble between December 2018 to February 2020.
3. The landlord should award £500 to account for its further failure in service (over a period greater than 6 months as per its compensation policy) and failure to fully resolve the leak / damage to the resident’s property.
4. The landlord should award £500 to account for the further time and trouble experienced from February 2020 onwards, including the inconvenience, distress, and the significant level of involvement required by both the resident and his partner throughout this matter.
The landlord should award the resident £150 in recognition of its poor complaint handling, and in replacement of the £30 previously offered.
A total of £2,150 should therefore be awarded within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination.
The landlord should also contact the resident (within four weeks of this determination) to obtain copies of the resident’s bills and should use this to reimburse the resident for the additional water charges and electricity costs incurred as a result of the leak detection and use of the dehumidifier. The landlord should also offer a reimbursement for the buckets and damp reader purchased by the resident to manage the internal leak. This too should be on receiving a copy of the resident’s receipts and should be requested within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the failures identified in this case and report back to the Ombudsman on the findings of this review within three months (by 9 January 2022). This review should include consideration of how to ensure that residents are adequately supported and communicated with in cases where major works are required and matters are referred back to a developer.
The resident has requested a refund of all service charges paid over the course of his complaint. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident had received poor service, an award of compensation has been made within this case to account for these failures. What’s more, the payment of service charges is a leaseholder obligation which covers a series of services, which includes but is not limited to the maintenance of the building. It would therefore be inappropriate to order the landlord to return all charges. The landlord should however consider whether a refund is due of any monies charged through service charges in relation to the repair of the roof. The landlord should therefore reconsider its service charge statement for 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 and write to the resident to confirm its position on the charges in question.
The landlord should ensure that it implements a robust record keeping method, to ensure that in future cases, it is able to evidence for itself and if necessary, for HOS, the level of service it has provided to residents. This should include maintaining records of complaints.
The landlord to ensure that relevant members of staff receive complaints handling training, incorporating the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) where appropriate.