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

Cornwall Housing Limited (202106464)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106464

Cornwall Housing Limited

25 March 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and guttering of his property. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background and summary of events

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred in his communications to issues with scaffolding and concerns regarding the standard of works undertaken from August 2021 onwards. The date of the Final Response letter from the landlord is dated 6 August 2021. Therefore the issues from after this date onwards have not been considered by the landlord before coming to this Service.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. The Ombudsman is therefore not able to consider these issues as part of this investigation.

The property

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy for a three bedroom terraced house.
  2. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property, reflecting its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 3.1 of the Tenancy Agreement sets out that the landlord must:

“keep the structure and exterior of [the] property (including drains, gutters and external pipes) in good repair and in proper working order. Other parts of your home that we must repair are … the structure and exterior of the building – roofs … drains, gutters, outside pipes”.

  1. Section 3.2 sets out the landlord “must do repairs in a reasonable time. When you ask for a repair we will tell you when the work should be completed, or alternatively give you an appointment.”
  2. Section 3.8 states that the resident “has the right to get repairs done on time.”
  3. Section 3.4 states that the resident “must allow [the landlord and its agents] access …. to do repairs … provided that you have been given at least 24 hours notice”.
  4. The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out that it may consider paying compensation where there is a “serious service failure” which “includes things like … failure to carry out repairs within set timescales…failure to carry out repairs in a satisfactory manner [and] failure to diagnose the correct repairs required”.

Background

  1. The repair log provided by the landlord relevantly records that:
    1. on 5 December 2017 the landlord attended the property to “clear and flush down pipes and gutters and clear gully”;
    2. on 24 July 2018 it was identified that the “light in kitchen possibly water damaged from previous leak”
    3. on 11 September 2018 the landlord recorded “clean and flush down pipes and gutters and clear gully at front and back of property…extremely blocked – mini waterfall down back of property”;
    4. on 12 September 2018 the landlord recorded “inspect the works from [the contractor] – tenant isn’t happy with the service or the work from [the contractor] and does not want them to visit the property – the roof still has water stuck in between the new roof”;
    5. on 19 December 2018 the landlord recorded “clean and flush down pipes and gutters and clear gully”;
    6. On 20 September 2019 the landlord recorded “inspect chimney at property for leak emailed photos to operative”;
    7. On 18 February 2020 the landlord recorded “look at the chimney and take photos – issue with the roof Chimney needs to come down.”
    8. On 2 March 2020 the landlord recorded “clean and flush down pipes and gutters and clear gully”;
    9. on 26 May 2020 the landlord recorded “leak in roof – wet near chimney – damp patch on ceiling. Tenant has patched a hole in ceiling when they first moved in – brown damp. Patch on ceiling coming down wall. Tenant believes the guttering needs replacing.”
    10. On 12 August 2020 the landlord recorded “chimney work removals etc”;
    11. On 16 September 2020 the landlord recorded “renew rear guttering unions”;
    12. On 18 May 2021 the landlord recorded “Gutters are still leaking and blocking despite previous attempts to repair. This has previously caused damage within the property”;
    13. On 12 May 2021 the landlord recorded “hole in roof that is allowing birds to get in and nest. The pest control has been dealt with by the tenant”;
    14. On 15 June 2021 the landlord has recorded “please attend to remove and replace soffit rear elevation – [the] operatives have identified that soffit on rear elevation of property is damaged, please remove and replace. Please also remove and renew rear guttering and associated rainwater goods”;
    15. On 1 July 2021 the landlord recorded “tenant has had ongoing issues … he has sent emails and pic but nothing being done. Roof leaking, mould everywhere, gutters damaged. He has paid for pest control, walls to be re-plastered. He is now unable to get contents insurance. Please can we do full inspection.”  Also on 1 July 2021 the landlord recorded “tenant has requested a further inspection as the planned works will not solve the continuing issue with the condition of the tiles on the roof”;
  2. The landlord’s consideration of the timeframe with respect to the resident’s complaint appears to begin on 26 March 2021, when the landlord states that the resident notified it that he had a concern about the guttering of his property. The landlord’s published Promise on Repairs sets out that guttering issues should be attended to in 20 days. A landlord operative attended the property on 4 May 2021 – 25 days after the resident’s report. It was identified that scaffolding was needed for repairs to be done. The landlord advised that the works had been ordered and were scheduled to be completed by the end of August or the first week of September. The landlord specified that the works would include “replacement of fascias, sofits, gutters and down pipes as well as the replacement of the first metre of roofing felt and any broken tiles [which] exceeds that required to repair the hole reported in the soffit and the correction to the gutter alignment.”
  3. On 6 May 2021 the resident called the landlord to see what the status was of the matter. He advised the landlord that the solution proposed by the builder sent on 4 May 2021 was inadequate. He stated that the roof leak, gutters and rendering needed to be repaired and scaffolding would be needed. He requested that an inspector be sent. The landlord sent an email acknowledging the receipt and details of the complaint. An official complaint by the resident was registered as of 6 May 2021.
  4. On 13 May 2021 the landlord sent the resident a stage one complaint response. The landlord advised that an operative attended the property on 4 May 2021 to assess the condition of the soffits and guttering and was not able to repair it. The operative identified that the soffit at the front of the property needed to be replaced and the guttering required a repair so that the water was properly channelled. The landlord advised that due to the large scale of the works needed a contractor had been engaged to fully remove and replace the soffits and guttering. The contractor would be in contact with the resident directly to arrange a time. The landlord also advised that scaffolding would be erected. The landlord advised that it was upholding the resident’s complaint “due to the time between the original repair being reported and works being arranged to complete”.
  5. On 16 June 2021 an internal email identified that the scaffolding at the front was due to be taken down on 22 June 2021 and a quote would be arranged for the rear of the property.  On 21 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord some photos of external guttering, an internal wall and a backyard shed. On 28 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to complain that nothing had been done regarding his initial complaint of 23 March 2021. The landlord responded on the same day and advised the resident that a Complaints Surveyor was booked for 1 July 2021.
  6. On 5 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to acknowledge the visit of the surveyor but raised concerns about the survey. He stated that the surveyor did not bring tools and “took a photo of one area from 100 yards away!”.
  7. On 8 July 2021 a surveyor’s report concluded relevantly that the mould in bedroom two was “due to atmospheric moisture” and not the gutter leaking as the resident believed. The report also recorded that the resident had “jet washed rear roof of all mould. There are now broken tiles across the roof. I believe this to be when roof was cleaned down but have no evidence to support this”.
  8. On 6 August 2021 the landlord wrote a stage two complaint response letter to the resident. The landlord advised the resident in that letter that his complaint would not be reviewed by the Tenant Appeal Panel because their role is to review complaints which have been not upheld or only partially upheld at stage one. The customer’s complaint had been upheld at stage one due to the five day delay before an operative attended. The landlord advised that the works were underway and someone would be in contact shortly regarding the date for the scaffolding and the completion of the works. The landlord noted that, as the resident had organised himself for cleaning and moss removal on the roof without the knowledge or consent of the landlord, it would not accept any liability for damage caused by this.
  9. The landlord also acknowledged that there had been complaints handling failures at stage one. It stated that it should have offered the resident £20 compensation for the five day delay and the stage one letter incorrectly advised the resident that he could take his complaint to stage two when he should have been advised to go to the Housing Ombudsman. The landlord also acknowledged that when the resident requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two, he should have been told that was not appropriate. The landlord advised the resident of the process for accepting the offer of compensation and gave referral rights to the Housing Ombudsman. The landlord also requested that the resident refrain from continuing to contact it about the matter and referred to its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy.
  10. The resident responded on 6 August 2021 by email to the landlord expressing his dissatisfaction. The resident stated that the issues had existed for over six years and remained. He stated that he has spent over £5,000 in repairs and cannot get contents insurance. He stated that he still has “a waterfall that comes in from the gutter through the window and floods the house the house is flooding each time it rains.”
  11. The landlord has confirmed that as of 26 January 2022 the repair works at the property are complete.
  12. The resident has submitted that as of 26 January 2022 “the roof still leaks…the interior damage is massive”.

Assessment and findings

  1. The crux of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord’s failure to promptly and properly repair gutters and other issues with the property’s roofing has caused significant damage to the property through water ingress. He states that he had to spend £5,500 rectifying the matter himself and he wants to be reimbursed for this.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged that there have been failings. However, this acknowledgement is limited to (i) its failure to attend to the repair within the required 20 day period, taking 25 days instead, the five day period that it went past attendance timescales for repair and (ii) its incorrect advice that the resident had the right to take his complaint to the second stage, rather than advising him that he could take the matter directly to this service.

Repair obligation

  1. The Ombudsman appreciates that this has been a distressing experience for the resident over an extended period of time. However, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that it can be reasonably concluded that there has been a longer-term failing by the landlord with respect to the repairs to the roof and guttering.
  2. The repair log indicates that the landlord undertook a number of repairs. Whilst ultimately it appears that more significant repairs were needed, this does not mean that the landlord was unreasonable to undertake the earlier repairs that it did. The Ombudsman has noted that there were significant periods of time in which no issues were reported, and on this basis the landlord could reasonably have concluded that the works that had been carried out had resolved the issue reported.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has stated that there has been significant internal damage to the property caused by inadequate repairs. However, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that the evidence provided is adequate to demonstrate this. In coming to this view the Ombudsman has taken into account the surveyor’s report of 8 July 2021 which concluded that the internal mould was due to “atmospheric moisture”. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident raised concerns about the adequacy of the survey. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the survey is a reliable record and there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the survey was inadequate. The key concerns raised by the resident about the survey were that the surveyor did not have tools and viewed some issues from a distance. The Ombudsman notes that neither of these would impact on the surveyor’s assessment of the internal mould.
  4. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s statements that he has undertaken his own work on the property. It appears that this was without the consent of the landlord. Limited evidence has been provided of these works. However, the Ombudsman notes the surveyor’s suggestion that the resident’s interventions may have caused further damage, although the landlord acknowledges that it does not have evidence to support this conclusion and it is a supposition. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s statements about extensive works that he felt that he had to do to resolve the problems. However, the Ombudsman considers that the resident should have obtained the landlord’s consent for such works and there is no evidence that such works were appropriate or that they, in any case, resolved the issues.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there have been a number of reports over the years about issues related to the roof, and understands that the resident is not satisfied with the actions that the landlord has taken to remedy these. However, and as set out above, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has carried out works over the years and there have been periods when no issues were reported. On this basis the landlord could reasonably have concluded that the works it carried out had addressed the issues.
  6. Turning to the report of March 2021, which was the focus of the landlord’s complaint response, it is noted that there was a delay in works being arranged and that the resident remains dissatisfied with the scope and extent of works that were then carried out. However, the delay was relatively short and the landlord subsequently inspected and carried out works to address the issues. Taken altogether, the landlord has met its repair obligation in respect of the March 2021 reports, and the Ombudsman therefore finds that there has not been a failing by the landlord with respect to repairs to the roof and guttering of the property.

Complaints handling 

  1. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. In its stage two response, the landlord appears to have approached the resident’s complaint on the basis that the issue first arose on 26 March 2021. However, the Ombudsman notes that the repair log records provided indicate that the landlord first attended the property to undertake works regarding the guttering in December 2017. There were a number of logs regarding repairs including in July 2018 where the landlord noted water damage from leaks and September 2018 where the landlord noted that there was a “mini waterfall” down the back of the property.
  3. The Ombudsman is not persuaded that the landlord can only be considered to have been on notice that the resident had concerns about the roofing from 26 March 2021. The Ombudsman considers that when considering the resident’s complaint the landlord should have looked at the property’s full repair history and the background and context of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord. The Ombudsman finds it unsatisfactory complaints handling that the landlord did not acknowledge the previous reports of the issue and treated the resident’s complaint on the grounds that it first became aware of the issues with the roof in March 2021. As a general principle, the landlord should take into account previous occurrences to ensure an effective resolution is achieved to any ongoing issue.
  4. The Ombudsman also finds that it was a complaints handling failing by the landlord that it failed to correctly advise the resident about his rights for a stage two complaint review and the timing for an application to this Service. The landlord also did not offer the resident the £20 compensation it found he was entitled to in the stage one complaint letter. It appears that this was only specified in subsequent communications when the resident sought to escalate the matter.

Redress

  1. The Ombudsman has found there to be some complaints handling failures and has therefore considered appropriate redress.
  2. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
  3. In this case the Ombudsman considers that some compensation is appropriate for the landlord’s complaint handling failings. The landlord has proposed a compensation payment of £20.00.
  4. In considering what compensation in this case is reasonable, the Ombudsman has referred to this service’s Remedies Guidance. This states that awards of £50 to £250 may be appropriate where the service failure had an impact on the resident but this was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.
  5. The Ombudsman has also referred to the landlord’s Compensation Policy which sets out that where the landlord has “full responsibility” for a service failing that has a “low impact” on a resident the “likely maximum” compensation is £50.00.
  6. In this case, the Ombudsman considers that the proposed compensation of £20 is insufficient and considers that it is appropriate that the landlord pay the resident £200 compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord with respect to its complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has not been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of repairs to the roof and guttering of the resident’s property.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman finds it unsatisfactory complaints handling that the landlord did not acknowledge the previous reports of the issue and treated the resident’s complaint on the grounds that it first became aware of the issues with the roof in March 2021. The Ombudsman also finds that it was a complaints handling failing by the landlord that it failed to correctly advise the resident about his rights for a stage two complaint review and the timing for an application to this Service. The landlord also did not offer the resident the £20 compensation it found he was entitled to in the stage one complaint letter.
  2. The repair log indicates that the landlord undertook a number of repairs. Whilst ultimately it appears that more significant repairs were needed, this does not mean that the landlord was unreasonable to undertake the earlier repairs that it did. Whilst there was a short delay in works being carried out following the March 2021 report the delay was relatively short and the landlord subsequently inspected and carried out works to address the issues.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience.