One Housing Group Limited (202123143)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123143

One Housing Group Limited

6 June 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak coming from the roof of the building into the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat.
3. The resident’s tenancy agreement commenced on 1 March 2021. He first reported an uncontainable leak coming from the roof of the building, into his property on 29 March 2021. A number of repairs to the roof area of the building, as well as decorative works, were subsequently undertaken because there was a reoccurrence of the leak. The following works were completed by the landlord’s contractors between 29 March 2021 and 17 December 2021:
   1. An engineer attended on 29 March 2021 and made safe the electrics.
   2. A repair work order was raised on 1 April 2021 to investigate and remedy the roof leak. A roof repair was subsequently completed on 7 May 2021. Decorative works to the resident’s ceiling were completed on 12 May 2021.
   3. On 16 September 2021 the resident reported that there was water penetration into his property once again. A repair was completed to the roof on 1 October 2021.
   4. The resident reported a damp patch on his ceiling on 14 October 2021. A contractor attended on 25 October 2021 to investigate the leak. Further works were undertaken on 24 November 2021 and the follow-up decorative works were completed on 17 December 2021.
4. The resident raised a complaint because he was dissatisfied that, despite first raising the issue in March 2021, the leak coming into his property remained unresolved. He was also unhappy with the communication regarding certain works that were said to have been completed, and with the landlord raising new work orders rather than addressing this as a recall job, which created further delays.
5. The landlord upheld the complaint, explaining that a work order was raised for a cherry picker but upon attending the site, the contractor was unable to carry out the works to the roof and rectify the leak due to parked cars preventing access. The landlord apologised for its poor communication and for the level of service received. In its stage 2 response dated 23 November 2021, as way of redress, the landlord confirmed a new job had been raised and a staff member would be tracking its progress to completion. It also offered £300 compensation, £50 under the right to repair and £250 for the inconvenience caused. This was accepted by the resident on the basis that the repair on 24 November 2021 would provide a permanent resolution.
6. Having exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP), the resident has reported further leaks into the property. A plumber attended on 23 February 2022 and a surveyor later advised, on 17 March 2022, to schedule further investigative works. This Service has not seen evidence thereafter that the repair to permanently resolve the leak has been completed.
7. The resident brought his complaint to this Service because he remained dissatisfied as the leak was still apparent in the property and had not yet been resolved. As an outcome, the resident wanted a permanent repair completed to ensure no further leaks, and he wanted a specialist to attend and investigate the root cause, as he believed the deep-rooted issue causing the leak had yet to be identified. He also sought compensation for the further distress and inconvenience caused to him and his family, and for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. It is acknowledged that the resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to identify the source of the leak has impacted his and his family’s health. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s claims, this Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or insurance.
9. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
10. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the return of the leak is frustrating but given that the cause has been identified as a separate issue than that which was rectified, the landlord must be given the opportunity to respond to the resident’s additional concerns. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which in his opinion 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’. it is noted that the landlord has not been given the opportunity to formally consider its subsequent response to the resident’s further reports, including whether further compensation is necessary. As such, the issues reported following the landlord’s final response will not be considered as part of this complaint, but a recommendation will be made for the landlord to do so.

Policies and procedures

11. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building including: drains, gutters and external pipes, the roof, internal walls, floors and ceilings.
12. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy provides timeframes for repairs, depending on their severity:
    1. Emergency: attend and make safe within 24 hours.
    2. Urgent: attend within three working days and complete within five working days.
    3. Routine: attend within five working days, and complete within twenty working days.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation payments can be made if there has been mismanagement, a delay in service, and/or additional costs have been incurred due to a service failure. Payments should take into account the level of stress, anxiety, frustration, uncertainty and inconvenience caused. This will include the severity, length of time, number of people affected and their individual circumstances.
14. The Right to Repair section of the compensation policy states that when repairs are not completed in the target time and it fails to meet a second target date it will provide compensation calculated at £10 plus £2 per day after second target date, up to a maximum of £50.
15. The compensation policy provides for three ranges of compensation amounts depending on the severity of the impact on the complainant:
    1. Minor impact: up to £50: Complaint has been upheld and there has been minor inconvenience or distress caused. Impact has been no more than a reasonable person could be expected to accept and the compensation is a token in acknowledgement of our responsibility.
    2. Medium impact – £50 – £250: Inconvenience and/or distress has clearly been caused as a result of a failure in service. Failure to follow the Complaints Policy, to investigate the complaint or poor handling of the complaint. A repeated failure of a low impact event could result in the impact being increased to a medium impact.
    3. High impact – £250 – £500: A serious failure in service has taken place. This could either be due to the severity of the event or a persistent failure has occurred over a prolonged period of time or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of a leak

16. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord should keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building, including the roof and external pipes, which, in this case, were the likely root cause of the leak, according to the landlord’s repair records. Thus, when a resident reports a leak from the roof area coming into the property, the landlord is obligated to attend such repairs within the stipulated timeframes, as per its repairs and maintenance policy, depending on the severity of the leak.
17. In this case, on most occasions when the resident reported the leak or the reoccurrence of the leak, the landlord attended within the stipulated timeframes. For example, an emergency appointment was completed within 24 hours following the initial report of a leak on 29 March 2021, as there was concern that the leak was close to the lighting and thereby a safety risk.
18. However, it is not disputed by either party that there have been some failings throughout the duration of the resident’s reports of a leak. First, there was a slight delay in completing the follow-up work after the initial emergency call out on 29 March 2021, with the contractor attending 26 working days after the initial report rather than the expected 20 working days.
19. Second, having completed the follow-on work on 7 May 2021, the landlord also acknowledged that a follow-on request should have been made subsequently to erect scaffolding in order to fit a new roof tile vent, but this did not happen, resulting in the reoccurrence of the leak in September 2021 and a missed opportunity to investigate and look to resolve the issue sooner and find a permanent solution.
20. Third, there were a number of miscommunications between the landlord, the contractors and the resident, which was likely to have added to the resident’s overall frustration. For instance, having reported that the leak had reoccurred on 16 September 2021, the resident questioned the contradictory information he had received regarding the subsequent roof repairs, which the landlord acknowledged in its stage two complaint response.
21. He further reported that the leak was still apparent on 4 October 2021, 14 October 2021, and 23 October 2021, yet the resident had to chase the landlord on 11 November 2021 for information regarding the repair as he had not received a call to raise a repair that he was expecting. There was also further miscommunication regarding the attendance on 16 November 2021 of an operative to complete decorative works in the property which had been cancelled by the resident prior to this date as the leak was still apparent.
22. Taking more than one attempt to find the source of the leak would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. Moreover, the Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake.
23. Even so, it is evident, as detailed above, that there were failings identified and missed opportunities to resolve the issue much sooner. Therefore, so far as possible, when a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right and it should seek to put a resident back to the position they would have been in if there had been no fault.
24. In this case, the landlord had acknowledged its failings and put matters right by completing the repair to resolve the issue (or what it thought had resolved the issue) and provided proportionate compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
25. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, dated 23 November 2021, it acknowledged its poor communication and all-round poor service, highlighting the unclear communication received about some of the roof repair works. So far as it was aware, the landlord completed the necessary repairs to resolve the leak on 24 November 2021, as well as completing the necessary decorative works on 17 December 2021, to put the resident back in the position he was in before the leak occurred.
26. As we know, the repair on 24 November 2021 did not resolve the issue and the leak reoccurred subsequently and is, as far as we know at this point, still ongoing with the source of the leak not yet identified. However, the landlord was not to know this at the time and was relying on the findings of its contractors which it was reasonable for it to do.
27. What is more, in recognition of the aforementioned failings, the landlord offered an amount of compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint up until the point it issued its stage two response on 23 November 2021.
28. The amount of £300 compensation was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, first, because compensation should be considered if there has been mismanagement and a delay in service. The landlord took into account the level of stress, anxiety, frustration, uncertainty and inconvenience caused, including the severity, and the length of time when it offered £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the aforementioned failings. This was at the maximum amount for what constitutes a ‘medium impact’ and at the low end of the ‘high impact’ category, detailed above in the policies section.
29. Considering the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue up until this point (29 March to 17 December 2021), whilst also, on the other hand, considering the intermittent nature of the issue, the amount of £250 for distress and inconvenience was in line with the ‘medium impact’ guidance, as the inconvenience and distress had clearly been caused as a result of a failure in service and was a repeated failure of a low impact event, which resulted in the impact being increased to a medium impact.
30. Second, it acknowledged the aforementioned delays in scheduling repair works, offering the maximum of £50 in accordance with the Right to Repair section of the compensation policy, which states that when repairs are not completed in target time and it fails to meet a second target date either £10 plus £2 per day after second target date would be given up to a maximum of £50.
31. Lastly, the total amount of £300 compensation was also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which suggests awards of between £250 to £700 where there has been service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.
32. Put simply, whilst this has been undoubtedly frustrating for the resident, the landlord has put matters right by completing the repair to resolve the issue (or what it thought resolved the issue) and it provided proportionate compensation for the failings identified. This was, of course, up until the follow-up repairs in November and December 2021 were completed.
33. Incidentally, it is noted that the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation in good faith on the basis that the above repair works would provide a permanent resolution.
34. However, the fact remains that the issue has not been resolved, with the most up-to-date information being that further works had been scheduled post-March 2022.
35. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made the following recommendations:
    1. To provide the resident with an update regarding the leak, confirming whether or not the surveyor’s investigation and repair works post-March 2022 has successfully provided a permanent resolution.
    2. Consider offering further compensation, in line with its compensation policy, in recognition of any further delays or inconvenience post-November 2021
36. In summary, it is not disputed by either party that there have been delays in resolving the issue and finding the source of the leak, and some communication issues did not help expediate the situation. There have been numerous repairs undertaken, as well as decorative works completed subsequently, during the period from 29 March to 17 December 2021, all of which provided only a temporary respite, with the leak reoccurring and causing the resident considerable distress and inconvenience as a result.
37. However, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident (up until the end of the ICP) which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
38. That said, it is important to note that if the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response post the exhaustion of the ICP, the resident could make a further complaint to the landlord, which should be dealt with as a separate complaint in accordance with its complaint procedure, but it would be better that the landlord take on board the recommendations and review its actions post the completion of this complaint.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

40. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £300 compensation previously offered at stage two of the complaint procedure, if it has not already done so.
    2. Write to the resident and provide an update regarding the leak, confirming whether or not the surveyor’s investigation and subsequent repair works post-March 2022 has successfully provided a permanent resolution.
    3. Consider offering further compensation, in line with its compensation policy, in recognition of any further delays or inconvenience post-November 2021.