Southern Housing Group Limited (202101220)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101220

Southern Housing Group Limited

13 December 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 water ingress at his property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder since November 1988.
The property is a 1-bedroom flat.

Scope

The resident has suggested that as a result of his living conditions, and the landlord’s failure to undertake the necessary repairs, both his mental and physical health suffered. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.
The resident has also asserted that his property had been suffering with water ingress, damp and mould for over 30 years. While this too may have been the case, the Ombudsman has not undertaken an investigation as far back as this. This is because as matters become historic, the Ombudsman is unable to rely on the availability and accuracy of records to establish what did or did not take place. It is unlikely that the landlord would maintain / retain records for such a period of time, and this makes it difficult for the Ombudsman to fairly undertake an independent and objective investigation.
Furthermore, and as per paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, if the resident was suffering with water ingress, damp, and mould over many years, it would have been appropriate for him to have complained about this during this time and to have escalated matters to the Ombudsman Service where he remained dissatisfied. It does not appear that this was done.
The available records do demonstrate that the resident began making clear expressions of dissatisfaction to the landlord in 2018, however. The Ombudsman has therefore taken the decision to consider the events which took place up to 12 months prior to this and until the landlord offered its final response. This is in line with the landlord’s own policy which explains that it will only normally consider matters which occurred up to six months prior to a complaint being registered.
This investigation has therefore assessed the landlord’s handling of matters from December 2017 onwards. This is also fair as the landlord’s own complaint response identified the first work order to address the water ingress as being in December 2017.

Summary of events

On 11 December 2017 the resident reported that he was experiencing water ingress at his property. The landlord’s repair records show that the pipes or gutter had come away from the flat roof. It appears that this was attended to on 21 December 2017.
On 11 January 2018 the resident requested a meeting with a manager to discuss an ongoing damp and water ingress issue at his flat. The resident chased this up on 6 February 2018, explaining that the problem had been ongoing for 30 years.
The landlord responded on the following day, confirming that a member of the Property and Estate Team would be in contact within five working days. Due to gaps in the landlord’s records, it is unclear whether the landlord made contact.
On 25 February 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing clear dissatisfaction with its handling of matters. He explained that as its operative had failed to show up, he would be contacting his solicitor and MP for support. He stated that his property was in a bad state.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the following day, noting that it had left a voicemail for the resident on 16 February 2018 to arrange a maintenance inspection. On 28 February 2018 the landlord followed this up with a letter confirming that it would seek to undertake an inspection via the above property. It would check that the drainage and gullies to the small front section of the flat roof were clear and would see whether any other repairs could be carried out to prevent water penetration to the resident’s flat. Surveying consultants had also been instructed to carry out a survey of all of the roofs within the scheme in order to arrive at a long term planned maintenance solution which would probably involve part or complete renewal of the roof / roof coverings.
The landlord advised the resident that to prevent his flat from suffering from the effects of the penetrating damp, as a result of the building defect, it would be willing to instruct a specialist damp proofing contractor to carry out a damp proofing solution too. This would take approximately one week to complete but would be dependent on the resident being able to clear his contents from the affected rooms. The resident was encouraged to make contact should he wish to discuss this.
On 7 September 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident following the maintenance inspection on 3 September 2018. It confirmed:
1. Since its letter of 28 February 2018, it had successfully gained access to the flat above and cleaned the moss off the flat roof. This ensured that the rainwater outlet was running freely.
2. On inspecting the interior of his property, it could see that the front wall to the lounge and kitchen were impacted by water penetration.
The landlord explained that it would subsequently ask its contractor to check the rainwater pipe to the front elevation. It reiterated that it wished to undertake a damp proofing treatment to the property but in order to do this, the resident needed to clear the contents of the kitchen and lounge to provide a reasonable working space for the tradesmen. The resident was encouraged to make contact to discuss or arrange assistance with the clearance.
On 22 September 2018 the resident made a complaint via the landlord’s website. He expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time in which he had been dealing with water ingress and that the landlord had never fixed this. He advised that whenever it rained, water entered the kitchen. The resident therefore sought an immediate solution. He suggested that as this problem was so bad, and serious work was needed, the landlord should consider buying his property from him or partaking in a property swap.
On 25 September 2018 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It advised that its letter of 7 September 2018 highlighted the steps that it was taking to resolve the issue and confirmed that its contractors would be checking the rainwater pipes. It also advised that damp proof treatment could be carried out.
The landlord advised the resident, in separate correspondence, that its contractor had been asked to erect scaffolding to the front elevation so that the parapet wall and rainwater pipe could be checked.
On 28 September 2018 the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident who expressed that its recent letter (7 September 2018) had only repeated what was said in February 2018. It had done nothing to fix the problem. The resident further explained that while he had been fortunate over the previous few months due to the good weather, when it rained, this poured into the property.
The resident expressed further dissatisfaction on 2, 6, and 9 October 2018. He noted that no scaffolding had been erected despite the landlord’s advice.
On 10 December 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident highlighting that the scaffold had now been erected (as of 30 November 2018). An inspection had subsequently been scheduled to assess the internal damage and to further investigate the external issue. It appears that this was done on 15 December 2018.
It is unclear whether any work was undertaken in January 2019. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord met with its contractor and roofing specialist on 12 February 2019 in order to obtain a quote to re-align the rainwater outlet with the pipe, repair and re-coat the roof with a waterproofing compound, renew the lead flashings, and overhaul the vertical hanging slates. An asbestos test was also ordered for the slate tiles.
On 18 June 2019 the landlord noted that the resident had posted a public message in which he stated that there was water pouring into his kitchen from above and that scaffolding had been up for six months, however nothing had been done to cure 30 years of problems.
The resident called the landlord on 22 July 2019 to further pursue a repair. The landlord’s records suggest that a temporary repair was completed, and further works were scheduled on 8 August 2019 to be undertaken on 5 September 2019.
The landlord’s records suggest that asbestos was confirmed on 10 September 2019. Arrangements were subsequently being made for a specialist contractor to remove this.
On 2 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. He stated that he had called the police as there was someone climbing on the scaffolding outside his property. He expressed discontent that the scaffolding had been up since November 2018 and still the works were incomplete.
The landlord apologised to the resident on the following day and advised that it had reported his scaffolding concerns to its contractor. In respect of the repair, it explained that its contractor had been awaiting an update from the Asbestos Team before works could commence.
In a further email on 3 October 2019 the landlord advised the resident that while it could not confirm when the asbestos removal process was to take place, its licensed removal contractor had been onsite to determine the schedule of works and would inform of the work required and timeframes involved. The landlord advised that once this was received, it would update the resident on the likely date of completion for the asbestos removal.
On 24 October 2019 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident regarding the ongoing roof issues at his property. It noted that a temporary repair had been carried out since it had last been in contact and sought clarification on whether there was still water ingress at the resident’s home when it rained. The contractor explained that if there was still an issue, it would do its best to move things along.
The resident explained in response that while it was difficult to tell the extent of the issue, it did not appear that anything had been done to address the downpipe and drain. There was also a small overflow pipe to the right of the kitchen window, and it was suspected that this was the cause of the problem. No further water ingress was reported, however.
On the same day, the landlord’s contractor explained to the resident that the landlord’s own team, under planned works due in January 2020, would address the roof replacement and render. The feedback provided by the resident on the drain, downpipe, overflow, and damage to the porch would subsequently be passed to the landlord. The resident was advised that if he was still experiencing water ingress in the meantime, however, a temporary repair could be undertaken.
The landlord’s records suggest that it sealed the downpipe on the balcony floor at the resident’s property on 7 November 2019.
On 11 and 14 November 2019 the resident made contact with the landlord. He reiterated his dissatisfaction that he had been living with damp for several years and advised that he would be seeking compensation. He stated that the water ingress had been an ongoing issue since moving in 33 years prior, with various botched repairs every few years.
On 15 November 2019 the landlord advised the resident that it had been chasing an update on when the asbestos removal would take place. It explained that it hoped to provide the resident with an update in the following week at which point, it could look into carrying out the repairs needed and getting the issue resolved. It apologised for the length of time taken.
On or around this time, works were undertaken to remove the asbestos and tarpaulin was placed over the area believed to be allowing water ingress. The resident confirmed on 19 November 2019 that he had been informed that the asbestos had now been removed.
On 17 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. He reported, in reference to the ongoing damp and water penetrating his flat, that in order to try and keep his property warm and dry, the heating was permanently on high. This was not helped by the part of the roof that had been removed with the asbestos, or by the tarpaulin put up. He stated that he would be seeking compensation for this situation.
On 19 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to his email. It requested to know whether the resident was still having issues with water entering the flat. It advised that if this was the case, it would need to get this raised urgently for the roofing contractor to undertake a temporary repair before planned works commenced in January. The landlord confirmed that it would also look into compensation for the resident and requested that the resident send any relevant energy bills.
The resident responded on the same day confirming that for the time being, the roof had been holding tight. He advised that he would make contact in the new year in relation to compensation as several towels had been used and ruined to keep the water at bay. He confirmed that he would provide copies of his electricity bills.
On 23 December 2019 the landlord advised the resident that as he was a leaseholder, any compensation claim would need to be made through his insurance. Damage to personal belongings needed to be made via his contents insurance and structural damages to the property could be claimed via his building insurance.
The resident explained on the following day that he wished to make a claim on the towels and items used to mop up and hold back the water for over a year. He did not believe that the landlord had been taking his experience seriously and asserted that had he been a renting tenant, the matter would have been dealt with sooner. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord reiterated its response on the next day.
On 5 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing further dissatisfaction. He enclosed photos of the condition of his property and explained that this resulted from the landlord’s complete failure to maintain the building and the roof area at the front of his flat. He asserted that a “mickey mouse” repair had been undertaken in November 2019 in which half of the roof and front wall was removed and then left incomplete upon discovering asbestos. There was now tarpaulin in place. The resident questioned whether he had been exposed to the asbestos.
The landlords records shows that it spoke with the resident on 8 January 2020 on the phone. It confirmed in its notes that the tarpaulin was still in place and holding off water.
On 22 January 2020 the resident sent the landlord pictures which he explained were of his lounge and kitchen. He asserted that the medical conditions he was dealing with were caused by the condition of the property.
On 24 January 2020 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that he received a reminder to pay his service charge while his roof repair remained outstanding. In back-and-forth correspondence, the landlord noted that the roof issue was being dealt with however the resident did not consider the tarpaulin to be a sufficient repair. He questioned why he should pay the service charges.
The landlord’s records suggest that a further report of water ingress was made by the resident on 30 January 2020. This was attended to, and the tarpaulin adjusted.
On 1 February 2020 the resident again sought to establish whether there was any remaining asbestos in the roof and whether he had been exposed to this. He explained that he was unsure whether this had been totally removed or not. The resident advised that upon discovering asbestos, the workers stopped halfway through the job. This had left the property more exposed and open to water damage. While there was tarpaulin in place, this had not worked with complete success. The walls were now damp over a larger area.
On 13 February 2020 the resident expressed to the landlord that his health was worsening as a result of the conditions of damp and mould. He added that he was still unclear on whether his property contained asbestos. He confirmed that he had been contacted by the Asbestos Team, but no confirmation was given as to whether all asbestos had been removed.
The resident was advised by the landlord on the following day that he would be contacted by the Property and Estates Team. It was later confirmed for the resident that a visit would be undertaken on 19 February 2020.
On 3 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord highlighting that his wall and ceiling were covered in black mould and very damp. He stated that no matter who he complained to, no works were being done.
The resident subsequently made contact with his MP who wrote to the landlord on 9 March 2020. The landlord was encouraged to look into the matter and to confirm the stage of its complaints process that the resident’s concerns were being considered at.
On 17 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord again to requested that the landlord consider purchasing his property. He advised that the repairs remained outstanding.
The landlord directed the resident to its sales team to discuss any queries regarding purchasing his flat. In respect of his ongoing issue, it noted that the matter was being looked in to and that an update would be provided.
On 20 March 2020 following a telephone call with the resident, the landlord confirmed that it had instructed its contractors to undertake another temporary repair to see if it could prevent any further water ingress. With regards to the roof, the landlord explained that it was no longer able to patch repair this and so the roof covering would be replaced on the planned programme of works. This would now be carried out in the financial year April 2020/2021. Internal decorative work would be carried out once this was completed.
The resident expressed further upset in response, noting that although he was initially advised that the planned works would take place in January, this was now being moved to the next financial year.
The landlord confirmed for the resident on the next day that its contractor would try to gain access via his neighbour to ensure that the tarpaulin was still in place and to stop any further water ingress. It reiterated that its Planning Team would be carrying out the roof works upon securing planning permission however noted that this could be delayed by COVID-19. In any case, the resident was advised to begin boxing up his belongings so that internal works could take place. The landlord noted that while this was not ideal, some works could be started whilst waiting for the roof, such as drying out the walls as a minimum.
It appears that on 23 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this response.
On 12 April 2020 the resident re-requested that the landlord purchase his flat or that it offer another as a part–exchange. He was advised by the landlord that there was no scheme to buy back his home.
On 22 April 2020, following an email from the resident, the landlord explained to the resident that it was trying to see if it could undertake the roof works prior to the programme scheduled for summer. Its contractor had subsequently visited the resident’s property in the morning to look into the possibility of carrying out a repair to address the render and roof. Scaffold was being sought so that it could go on to the roof for a second look and a quote would also be sought for the internal works required to the resident’s property. It explained that while it was only carrying out urgent works, its concern was also with the resident’s health, as he had advised.
On 30 April 2020 the resident’s MP wrote further to the landlord. She stated that the resident had confirmed the completion of a temporary repair, but had recently learned that this had not been successful. This had been reported to the landlord. The resident’s MP reminded the landlord that it still had a duty to address this as an urgent repair during the COVID-19 period. She therefore requested the landlord’s plan of action and confirmation that the resident’s concerns were being dealt with as a complaint.
On the same day the landlord responded to the resident’s MP. It advised that it would offer a formal response and confirmed that it was not treating the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint.
On 1 May 2020 the resident submitted yet another online complaint relating to the lack of repairs at his property and identifying damp and mould. It appears that the landlord contacted the resident and made arrangements to visit his property in the weeks that followed however the Ombudsman has not seen a record of this.
On 26 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update. It explained that following a site inspection in the previous week, a list of works had been identified as work which could be completed with immediate effect:
1. Replacement of the asphalt decking area above the bay window and associated lead works to this area.
2. Render works to the parapet area and other areas as appropriate.
3. Felt, batten, and slate with all associated lead works to the front elevation including replacement guttering and downpipes.

The landlord noted that the works would commence in the week and were scheduled to be completed over the following four weeks.

The landlord confirmed for the resident, in separate correspondence, that the drainage from the asphalt decking area would also be included in the first stages of the works.
On 2 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident providing an update on the works. It noted that the terrace had been stripped and new asphalt laid. The next step was for the slates to be fitted and the lead detailing. This would commence in the week. The landlord noted that it was still on track to complete the works within the four weeks’ timescale.
On 25 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that the roofing works were due to be completed later in the day. The render would receive a coat of paint and then the scaffolding would be removed. The landlord therefore sought to establish whether the resident had experienced any further water ingress before this was removed. It was explained that further roofing works would take place to change the windows at a later time. In respect of the internal damage to the resident’s home, he was advised that it could either complete the works or the resident could obtain a quote from his own contractor.
On 19 October 2020 the resident expressed to the landlord that the roof works had completely failed to stop the water entering and that the pipework needed replacing. He emphasised that the inside of his flat was still covered in damp.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day advising that as promised, it would replaster and redecorate his property. It requested to know whether the resident was happy for these works to be booked in. The landlord also confirmed for the resident that the downpipe had been replaced.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident advised the landlord that there was no use undertaking internal work as there was still water ingress. A further inspection was subsequently undertaken on 23 October 2020 which found no water ingress.
On 11 November 2020 the resident submitted an online enquiry on the landlord’s website. He expressed that the landlord’s attempts to resolve his living condition had failed time and time again. This had impacted his health. He therefore sought compensation and for the landlord to purchase his flat.
The landlord advised the resident, on 16 November 2020 in response to his online enquiry, that the Surveyor Team would provide an update.
On 11 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He asserted that the landlord had closed his case with his MP months before the works began and emphasised that this was an official complaint. He stated that his roof had been repaired late in the year, only to have the worst ever damage occur as water poured into his flat days after. This was caused by a failure to repair and replace the drain and pipes that had always been a problem. He stated that this still had not been done.
A further complaint was made by the resident on 15 December 2020 which the landlord acknowledged and confirmed it would raise with its Complaints Team.
The landlord noted within its internal emails on 22 December 2020 that it was aware of no further reports of water ingress at the resident’s property and nothing had been reported since its last visit. It confirmed internally that it would raise a job to check the downpipe.
In further internal correspondence, the landlord’s surveyor noted (on 11 January 2021) that the issue had been resolved months prior by an external contractor who carried out extensive remedial works to the balcony. He noted that a post inspection had been successfully undertaken of this.
On 12 January 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its stage one response. It explained that it was only able to investigate matters which dated back up to a year, as per its complaints policy, and stated:
1. Its contractors had confirmed that works had been carried out throughout 2019 and that on 7 November 2019, it had attended to the extended down pipe on the balcony floor and sealed this with all-weather sealant.
2. On 30 January 2020 further reports were received that the roof was leaking. This was raised with roofing contractors and fixed. No further reports had been made since and as far as it was aware, there were no outstanding issues.
3. It had found no notes to suggest that the pipes needed to be replaced and the two members of staff that had been dealing with the matter at the time had since left the organisation.
4. A post works inspection of the works to the balcony had been undertaken by its surveyor.
The landlord noted that it had agreed, as a goodwill gesture, to carry out decorations to the affected areas of the resident’s property. This offer had not been taken up, however.
On 12/13 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. He shared photos taken on the day and explained:
1. Repair to the drain above was the last thing that had been done in November 2019 after the roof work had been completed. He then had a significant amount of water pouring into his flat caused by the blocked drain.
2. Scaffolding was erected however it took until November for any work to begin. Builders came, removed rendering, and then left without completing the job.
3. Water continued to enter his flat and tarpaulin was placed above the area to stop the water entering the flat. After taking the scaffolding down, it then had to be put back up to complete the roof.
In separate correspondence on the same day, the resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage two.
On 21 January 2021 the landlord confirmed for the resident that his complaint would be escalated. It requested that the resident bullet point the issues and outcomes he was seeking.
On 4 February 2021 the landlord advised the resident that a senior manager would call him at a suitable time to discuss the outstanding issues. The resident confirmed for the landlord (on 8 February 2021) that he was available at any sensible time.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that the senior manager reviewing his case had changed. A new manager would subsequently make contact later in the week.
On 18 February 2021 the resident expressed frustration that it was unclear who was managing his matter. In separate correspondence, the resident advised that there was still damp within the kitchen especially around the windows.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It stated:
1. It carried out the roofing works and had not received any reports of water ingress from the resident since, and so were of the opinion that the works were successful.
2. It had offered the services of its contractor to carry out the re-plastering works and redecoration of the kitchen and living room, however this was declined at the time as the resident stated that he had belongings that needed to be moved and disposed of. The landlord noted that this offer still stood.
3. It was discussed that the resident could get quotes himself for the works and that it would consider contributing towards this.
4. As a goodwill gesture, it had offered to assist with removing boxes, and this offer still stood.
On 2 March 2021 the landlord requested an extension for its review response while it waited for a report from its contractor. It advised that it would respond by 12 March 2021. The landlord requested that the resident outline the sort of compensation he was seeking.
It is unclear when the resident responded to the landlord, but on or around this time, the resident advised:
1. He believed that he was due an amount of £60,000 compensation as he had lived with the latest issue since 2016 and it took until the end of 2020 to repair. He stated that the water penetration dated back to 1986.
2. There had been huge mental and physical pressures over the previous four years. He constantly had to get up in the middle of the night when it rained, and to use plastic sheets and buckets to protect his property.
3. He had paid thousands of pounds in service charges, however the landlord had not maintained the building.
4. Numerous towels had to be used, his microwave oven had broken, and items constantly had to be moved.
5. Due to the hazards that the water ingress presented, he was unable to use his kitchen. He subsequently had to eat out for years.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord provided its final response. It explained:
1. It acknowledged that it had let the resident down with delays and in getting the repair work carried out. It noted that the first job was raised on 11 December 2017 and not completed until May 2020. On two occasions, there was an 8-month gap before a new works order had been raised and on another, a 6-month gap. This indicated that the issue was intermittent and was an issue with heavy rain.
2. It could not identify any reports which supported the claim that he could not use his kitchen.
3. It had offered to redecorate the room and to help clear this.
The resident would need to seek legal advice if he wished to pursue a claim for £60,000. The landlord explained, however, that as well as the decorations, it would be happy to make a discretionary payment of £500, or £1,500 if the resident wished to undertake the decorative works himself.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress at his property.

Under the terms of the resident’s lease and the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord was responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the building in good repair. This included the roof, drains, guttering and external pipes.
As such, on receiving the resident’s reports of a roof / drainage / pipework issue causing water ingress at his property, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take appropriate steps to address the matter, and within a reasonable amount of time. What is reasonable in the circumstance will depend on the scale of the work required and the timeframes set out under the landlord’s repair policy.
It is clear, however, upon assessing the landlord’s approach and the evidence provide, that while the landlord did take some action, a significant length of time passed before it was able to confirm for itself that a suitable fix was in place which satisfactorily resolved the water ingress.
The Ombudsman recognises that on 21 December 2017, following the resident’s report of water ingress, the landlord took some action to address the gutters / external pipes. The landlord’s records suggest that this provided a temporary fix, which was appropriate.
It was also reasonable, although somewhat delayed, that upon being informed that further water ingress was being experienced, the landlord advised the resident on 28 February 2018 that it would undertake an inspection of the property to establish whether it could take any further steps to resolve the resident’s issue.
Despite being a leaseholder, the landlord accepted that it would need to undertake works to manage the damage sustained to the resident’s property and offered to instruct a specialist to carry out a damp proofing solution. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not take up the offer.
The landlord also highlighted for the resident in September 2018 that it had taken some steps to ensure that the rainwater outlet was running freely and would continue to investigate the rainwater pipe. As the landlord had identified damp on inspecting the resident’s property, it was reasonable that it reoffered the damp proof treatment too. The Ombudsman cannot see that any reports of water ingress were made during this time and has noted that the resident confirmed being fortunate with good weather over the previous months.
Despite reassuring the resident in September 2018 that the issue would be further investigated, however, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord undertook an inspection until 15 December 2018. Although the resident expressed on 22 September 2018 that an immediate solution was needed, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord acted with any urgency.
Furthermore, following a further inspection in February 2019, the Ombudsman cannot see that any proactive action was taken or that any progress was made. While the landlord’s records show that works were needed to re-align the rainwater outlet with the pipe, repair and re-coat the roof with a waterproofing compound, renew the lead flashings, and overhaul the vertical hanging slates, it does not appear that this was done. Rather, the Ombudsman can see that further temporary works were completed several months later, prompted by a further repair request and complaint from the resident. This was inappropriate. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have arranged / undertaken the outstanding works at the earliest opportunity.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord sought to undertake more permanent works in September 2019, however this was delayed by the discovery of asbestos and required intervention from a specialist team. It was reasonable that while the landlord was unable to confirm a date in which this would take place, it maintained communication with the resident during this time. It was also appropriate that during this time, the landlord’s contractor sought to establish whether the resident was experiencing any further water ingress and advised that it would take steps to manage this up until the planned works were undertaken.
It is unclear what works were undertaken upon removing the asbestos at the resident’s property. The Ombudsman can see, however, that tarpaulin was laid at this time to prevent any further water ingress. While this was not an unreasonable temporary solution, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was left in place for a longer period than this Service would expect. This is particularly concerning as the resident had explained that heat was being lost from his property due to the property being more exposed following the removal of parts of the roof / front wall and that the internal walls were increasingly damp over a larger area.
Although the resident had confirmed in December 2019 and January 2020 that the roof / tarpaulin had been holding tight for the time being, the Ombudsman can see that on 30 January 2020, the landlord was again required to attend to the issue as the solution was not watertight and was not a practical long-term solution.
The Ombudsman appreciates that as the landlord had intended to undertake a full schedule of works under its planned maintenance arrangement, it would have been satisfied with a temporary solution for the time being. It was also reasonable that the landlord instructed its contractor on 20 March 2020 to reassess whether anything further temporary works could be done. As the landlord had taken the decision to move this to the next financial year, however, in the Ombudsman’s view, a more permanent and immediate arrangement should have been employed. The Ombudsman can see that it was not until 26 May 2020 that the landlord was able to outline its plan of action to offer the resident a suitable fix, with works subsequently undertaken throughout June 2020.
It is unclear whether the works undertaken at this time adequately resolved the problem. While the resident asserted that the works failed to stop water from entering his home, the landlord’s record’s and internal emails suggest that a post works inspection was undertaken which confirmed that works were appropriate. As a result, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether this did indeed resolve the problem. The Ombudsman can see, however, that upon receiving the resident’s assertion that the issue remained unresolved on 19 October 2020, the landlord undertook an inspection on 23 October 2020 and found no further water ingress. This was an appropriate response. The landlord was therefore able to satisfy for itself that the issue had been resolved, and also agreed to undertake further inspections of the downpipe to offer the resident further assurance.
The Ombudsman can see that within the resident’s later complaints, he stated that he had experienced the worst ever leak in the days following the landlord’s completion of works. The Ombudsman has been unable to see, however, that this was reported to the landlord or that requests for repair were made.
In respect of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord made several offers to undertake restorative works which the resident declined. As well as offering to undertake a damp proofing solution, the landlord also advised at a later time (in 2020) that it could take steps to begin drying the walls following the residents reports that it had becoming increasingly damp over a large area. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was also given the option of obtaining his own quotes for internal works to commence.
The Ombudsman accepts, however, that the landlord’s delay in addressing the root cause made this offer less appealing (and somewhat impractical) for the resident – as he explained. The Ombudsman has therefore taken the view that while the landlord had not left the resident to deal with the damp / mould unsupported, the length of time taken by the landlord to arrange a robust fix for the water ingress counteracted its proposed internal resolution. While internal works would have offered the resident some improvements, the continued water ingress would have resulted in continued internal damage.
It was not disputed by the landlord that it took an unreasonable length of time to ensure an appropriate fix for the resident. It is also evident from the above that the landlord should have taken more proactive steps to resolve the matter. In light of this, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord did attempt to put things and made an offer of compensation (£500) to reflect the resident’s experience.
Given the distress, the significant level of time expended by the resident chasing the matter, the inconvenience, and the impact on the resident’s ability to enjoy his home, this was reasonable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this, coupled with the landlord’s offer to undertake the internal repairs to the resident’s property, was satisfactory in resolving this aspect of the complaint.
For completeness, the Ombudsman recognises that the resident requested that the landlord buy back his property in order to fully restore it to good condition. As the landlord was under no obligation to do so, however, it was not unreasonable that it did not take up this suggestion, and that it explained to the resident that it did not offer a buy back service. The Ombudsman appreciates that this would have been disappointing for the resident, nonetheless.
In respect of the resident’s belongings, it was reasonable that the landlord referred the resident to his insurance to claim on any damage to internal contents (such as his microwave). The Ombudsman also notes the resident’s assertion that he was unable to use his kitchen due to hazards presented by the water ingress, however while this might have been the case, the Ombudsman cannot see that any such reports were made to the landlord. The Ombudsman therefore cannot see that the landlord was given the opportunity to address this or to make safe the kitchen.
Finally, in respect of the asbestos removal, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with a clear response as to whether he had been exposed to this. The Ombudsman can see that the resident chased a response to this on several occasions, and while it appears that the asbestos team did make contact with him, he was unable to receive the reassurance he sought. The Ombudsman has subsequently made a recommendation below for the improvement of the landlord’s communication.

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

Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it recognises that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about its service, action or lack of action. It is therefore unclear why the landlord had not considered the resident’s concerns with its handling of his repairs under the complaints process at an earlier time.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the evidence and can see that there were several occasions in which the resident sought to raise a complaint about the landlord’s service, and yet the landlord failed to engage its official procedure and to offer the resident a formal response.
This can be seen as earlier as 2 February 2018 whereby the resident raised with the landlord that he was unhappy that the matter had not been resolved and that an operative had failed to show up. The Ombudsman accepts that in response (on 28 February 2018) the landlord did set out how it intended to address the issue, however, this should have been done under the landlord’s complaints process to enable the resident to challenge its response formally, should he wish.
Despite acknowledging the resident’s later official complaint made on 22 September 2018, the landlord again failed to offer the resident a stage one response, and within 5 working days, as its process suggests it will. The Ombudsman can see that there were subsequently several further expressions of dissatisfaction in October 2018 which went unrecognised (officially). This was inappropriate.
While the landlord’s policy suggests that if the resident makes complaints via social media, it will make contact to establish further details of the complaint, the Ombudsman cannot see that it did this. Although the landlord’s records note that the resident publicly posted his dissatisfaction on 18 June 2019, it still failed to offer the resident a complaint response.
In later correspondence from the resident, he again made clear his concerns with the way in which the repairs had been handled and the length of time that matters had gone on for. This can be seen in November 2019, in back-and-forth email conversation with the landlord in December 2019 (in which he explained that he sought compensation), and in January 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, these were all missed opportunities to officially manage the resident’s concerns and expectations.
The Ombudsman recognises that following further complaints in February and March 2020, the resident resorted to seeking the support of his MP. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord confirmed in its correspondence to the resident’s MP, despite the MP clearly setting out resident’s dissatisfaction, that it was not considering matters under its complaint process. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, the MP’s endeavour to confirm that the landlord had been considering matters under its procedure should have been a prompt for the landlord to do so. The Ombudsman notes that another complaint was submitted by the resident in May 2020 which the landlord again overlooked.
With further complaints made by the resident in October, November and December 2020, the Ombudsman is concerned that it took until mid-December 2020 for the landlord to confirm that the matter was with its Complaints Team. The landlord subsequently offered its first official stage one response on 12 January 2021, almost two years after the resident had first expressed dissatisfaction. This was significantly overdue and contrary to both the landlord’s complaints policy and good complaint handling practice.
Adding further to the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s policy suggests that upon receiving a stage two complaint request, the landlord will undertake a review within 7 working days and offer its response. As the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage two on 13 January 2021, the Ombudsman therefore would have expected the landlord to have provided this in late January 2021. It is clear, however, that the landlord failed to do this. While the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord sought more time to discuss the outstanding issues with the resident, and on 2 March 2021 requested an extension, this should have been better managed, and any extensions required should have been requested before the deadline elapsed.
In light of the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint. While the landlord did maintain communication with the resident throughout this time, it was inappropriate that the landlord allowed such a significant length of time to pass before properly considering the resident’s concerns under its complaints process. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord explained, at any point, why it had not responded under its complaints process.
The landlord’s delay in recognising the resident’s complaint also meant that several issues went unrecognised and unaddressed as the landlord’s policy only enabled it to consider matters which occurred within 12 months of the complaint. The Ombudsman cannot see that there was any recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling omissions within its final response, or that the landlord made any attempt to put things right.
Ultimately, the landlord delayed the resident in being able to seek / achieve resolution. Had the landlord considered the resident’s concerns when they were first raised, it may have been able to better manage his expectation and to refer him to the Ombudsman at an earlier time if he remained dissatisfied. Its failure to do so meant that the resident had to continually complain as it did not appear that this was being taken seriously.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:
1. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord recognised its omissions within its final response and made a satisfactory offer of redress to put things right.

The Ombudsman has not ignored that there were several failures in the landlord’s handling of matters. The length of time taken by the landlord to confirm for itself that the water ingress issue had been resolved was unreasonable and this adversely impacted the resident’s ability to enjoy his home, also causing distress and inconvenience. While the landlord’s repair policy suggests that it will endeavour to complete works the first time around and undertake routine repairs as quickly as possible, it is clear that the landlord did not do this.

Still, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord acknowledged its responsibility in restoring the resident’s property to good decorative order and that compensation was due in recognition of the resident’s experience. The redress offered was in line with this Service’s own Remedies Guidance and was sufficient in resolving the resident’s complaint.

There was a clear failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaints policy and to recognise the resident’s complaint despite clear expressions of dissatisfaction on multiple occasions. This was inappropriate.

At stage two of the landlord’s complaints process, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord also failed to offer its response within good time (and the timeframe set out under its complaints process). While it did attempt to manage the resident’s expectations by requesting an extension, this was after the deadline for its response had elapsed.

In consideration of the landlord’s handling of the complaint as a whole, it is clear that the landlord failed to act in accordance with good practice. Subsequently, as well as making an order of compensation, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation to improve the landlord’s complaint handling service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £500.
This should be paid in addition to the £500 already awarded by the landlord and if the internal works to the resident’s property have not already been arranged, this should be done within 8 weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord should ensure that the above amounts are paid within four weeks of this letter.

Recommendations

It is unclear whether the resident provided the landlord with the relevant energy bills requested. The Ombudsman notes, nonetheless, that the landlord did agree in its correspondence that it would consider these. Therefore, if the landlord has not done so already, it should obtain copies of the resident’s heating bills for this period and reimburse the resident for any amount overspent.
If the resident is able to provide receipts, the landlord should also consider reimbursing him for the towels and buckets purchased to manage the leak at his property over an extended period. This would be reasonable.
While the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has since updates its complaints policy to reflect the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord may still benefit from revisiting the Code to refresh itself on the importance of acknowledging expressions of dissatisfaction where they are made and seeking resolution at the earliest opportunity.
The Ombudsman has recently published a report on Damp and Mould, which can be found here – Spotlight Report – Damp and Mould. The landlord should ensure that this publication is shared with all repair and complaints staff and that senior managers ensure that the recommendations contained within this report are implemented.