Magenta Living (202125210)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125210

Magenta Living

30 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

The complaint concerns how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak into his property.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident rents the property to a tenant. The property is a flat on the top floor of a communal building.
The landlord’s repair logs state that an emergency repair was raised on 6 December 2021 following a report of a leak from the roof of the building into the property. A work order was raised on 9 December 2021 to renew a one metre section of the roof ridge line. However, that work had to wait until scaffolding was available to reach the roof.
On 10 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and requested to raise a complaint into how the matter had been handled. He described the elements of the complaint as:
1. He had experienced issues of leaks from the roof for several years and the landlord had been unable to resolve the matter.
2. The wait to erect scaffolding in order to repair for the roof was unacceptable.
3. It should be the responsibility of the landlord to repair the damage caused by the leak.
4. The landlord’s repair team had not kept him updated on the progress of the work.
A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 22 December 2021. The landlord first informed the resident that in line with its complaint policy, it would not investigate historical roof repairs. It then explained that due to the high volume of emergency repairs as a result of storm damage that scaffolding would not be available until the new year. The landlord confirmed that its contractor had attended on 16 December 2021 to undertake a temporary repair to prevent water ingress into the property.
The landlord apologised that the resident had not been updated on the work that had taken place, but explained that it would not normally provide updates to individuals for work in communal areas unless directly contacted by them.
The landlord explained that as a leaseholder, the resident was responsible for internal repairs and advised him to contact his insurance provider in relation to any damage from the leak.
Following an escalation request by the resident on 17 January 2022, a stage two complaint response was sent on 10 February 2022. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. No issues with the building’s roof had been reported within the last 12 months. It was therefore satisfied that the leak reported in December 2022 was a new issue unrelated to historical issues.
2. When the resident reported a second leak over the Christmas period, he was asked to contain the leak as no roofers were available to attend.
3. There was a delay in the work starting due to several contractors testing positive for Covid-19. The work started on 24 January 2022 and the landlord confirmed that the work had been completed and the two areas of the roof that were leaking had been repaired.
4. It stood by its position, set out at stage one, that repairs to the property are the responsibility of the resident as leaseholder, as the damage to the property was caused by an issue outside of the landlord’s control and is therefore an insurance matter.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident explained he remained dissatisfied and frustrated that the landlord refused to take any responsibility for the damage in the flat.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy defines its repair types as follows:
1. Emergency (attend within three hours, complete within 24 hours). A repair where there is a high risk of immediate danger.
2. Urgent (attend within five working days). Repairs that require urgent attention to prevent damage but pose no risk to a person or the property.
3. Routine (attend within 21 working days). The landlord’s response time for standard repairs.
4. Planned Routine (60 working days). Routine repairs which require further planning.
The landlord’s leaseholder handbook makes cleat that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof (amongst other things).
The handbook states that a leaseholder is, in part, responsible for the repair of:
1. Fittings such as kitchen units and sinks
2. Internal non-structural walls.
3. Plaster or other surface material on interior walls and ceilings.
4. Toilets, baths and showers.
5. Fixtures, fittings and internal decorations.

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated his dissatisfaction that the landlord did not address elements in his complaint relating to a previous complaint raised in 2018 about the condition of the roof and whether this previous issue is related to the leaks which occurred in December 2021.
The landlord explained that it would not investigate historical issues in its complaint process and noted that it had received no reports relating to the condition of the roof, or of any leaks, in the 12 months prior to the complaint being raised on 10 December 2021.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to June 2021. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in December 2021.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak into their property

The landlord’s repair logs and correspondence described the events of the leak as follows:
1. It was first informed by the resident of a leak on 4 December 2021. An operative attended on the same day and determined the source of the leak was from the building’s roof.
2. An emergency repair was raised on 6 December 2021 to investigate the roof and locate the source of the leak. This was marked as completed on 6 December 2021.
3. A routine repair was raised on 9 December 2021 to repair the roof. A note was added to the repair logs on 10 December 2021 stating that the landlord was attempting bring forward the 17 January 2022 starting date of the work.
4. A temporary repair was undertaken on 16 December 2021 to stop the leak until scaffolding could be erected and the roof repaired.
5. An emergency repair was raised on 4 January 2022 following a report that a second leak had started leaking water onto electrics in the property. An electrician attended on 5 January 2022 to make safe.
6. The work to repair the roof started on 24 January 2022. There was a delay in erecting the scaffolding as a result of several operatives needing to isolate as a result of testing positive for Covid-19.
7. The contractor wrote to the landlord on 26 January 2022 and confirmed that the repairs to the roof had been completed. The contractor explained that “our staff inspected the second leak and [confirmed that] this was coming from the same valley as the first leak, just a different location. We have stripped out the existing valley and replaced this with a GRP valley system”.
Overall, the landlord has responded to the leaks from the roof in line with its repairs policy and obligations as freeholder of the building. On receiving the report from the resident on 4 December 2021 of a leak, it attended on the same day and determined the source of the leak was from the building’s roof and therefore it was its responsibility to repair.
It responded to emergency repairs within the 24–hour timeframe, a temporary repair was raised and undertaken within the five working day timeframe for urgent repairs when the landlord was unable to bring forward the starting date of the repair work, and all roof repairs were completed within the 60 working day timeframe for planned routine repairs. A repair of this type would be considered to be planned work, as the landlord would first have to arrange for scaffolding to be erected before the work could begin.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord responded to the residents reports of leaks and how it handled the repairs to the roof of the building.
The resident stated his dissatisfaction that the landlord declined to take responsibility for the damage caused to the property by the leaks and had informed him that it was a matter for its home contents insurer.
In regard to insurance, the leaseholder handbook states that a leaseholder “must arrange your own contents insurance to cover your belongings and the fixtures, fittings and decorations that you are responsible for”.
In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it did not consider that it was liable for the damage to the property as there had been no reports of a leak from the roof in the 12 months prior to the issue occurring, and that as issue was unforeseen it was therefore outside of its control.
It was appropriate for the landlord to give this advice, as it would not be responsible for the costs of damage to residents’ personal possessions in a situation where there is insufficient evidence to show the landlord was at fault for causing the leak.
Overall, a landlord would usually only be expected to provide compensation if there was evidence that its actions, or inaction, led to the repair issue arising (which then caused damage). A leak in the roof is not, in itself, evidence of fault by the landlord, and nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation suggests that the landlord’s actions led to the leak. The leaseholder manual sets out that leaseholders should have home insurance for these types of situations, and so it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to that option. The previous leaks in the roof occurred several years prior to the one considered here, and also would require further evidence than has been seen here to support a contention that this was a single ongoing problem for which the landlord was responsible.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of a leak into their property.

Recommendations

It is recommended that, if it has not done so already, the landlord write to the resident and provide information on how he can make a claim against its liability insurer for the damage to the property caused by the leaks from the roof.