Stafford & Rural Homes (202113034)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113034

Stafford & Rural Homes

13 July 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 the resident’s reports of a roof leak and follow-on works.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The evidence provided shows that the resident initially reported a damp patch on a bedroom ceiling in June 2020. A repair appointment was raised around this time but the records indicate that this was cancelled by the resident as she had requested that the roof be replaced. A further repair was raised in October 2020 for the same matter. The records indicate that the resident sent a follow-up email asking for an update on the roof repair at the end of October 2020 and a further email in December 2020 asking for action to be taken within seven working days. A survey of the roof was completed on 18 December 2020 and contractors attempted to place tarpaulin over the roof on 23 December 2020 as a temporary measure as the roof was due to be replaced, however, this could not be completed due to health and safety reasons. The resident’s roof was replaced in January 2021.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in March 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken the landlord to address the roof leak issues which she said she had first reported in 2017. She had been told that the roof would need replacing in June 2020, but was not told when this would occur and had needed to send several follow-up emails until roofers turned up unexpectedly in January 2021. She advised that she needed to move her son out of the bedroom as the issue was affecting his asthma and that she had needed to sleep downstairs with her children when the weather was bad for approximately two weeks. She added that whilst the roofing works were taking place, the roofers had caused a fire which also affected her neighbour’s property. This had caused water damage to the wallpaper in one bedroom where the roofers had thrown water over the fire. She had been informed that the roofers should not have been using a flame as no risk assessment was completed. The roofers had agreed to re-stick the wallpaper to the walls and offered a £50 gift card by way of apology. Some plastering had been completed but this was not to a good standard, another contractor had agreed that the plastering had not been completed to a good standard and this was eventually rectified, however, some areas remained outstanding. She also advised that the issues had affected her mental health.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that the first report of the roof leak had been in June 2020. It acknowledged the length of time taken to complete the roof replacement and subsequent repairs as well as its lack of communication regarding the issues. It acknowledged that the quality of the plastering carried out was not up to standard and had addressed this with the contractors. It confirmed that it would be attending the property to carry out an inspection for any further works. The landlord apologised for the multiple failures in completing the necessary repairs and its poor communication. It offered £300 compensation in addition to the £50 gift card offered by the contractors in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident and the loss of use of one bedroom.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord as a resolution to her complaint. She added that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s poor communication and the length of time it had taken to address the repair issues within the property. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her communication with the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident advised that she had initially reported a damp patch on her ceiling in 2017, but there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had pursued her concerns until June 2020 or raised a formal complaint until March 2021. In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, 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, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to June 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in March 2021.
  2. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and follow-on works.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to the structure of the building, including the roof and guttering. It would also be responsible for repairs needed to the internal walls, floors and ceilings of a property. Emergency repairs, including those to uncontainable water leaks should usually be attended to within 24 hours to make safe, follow on works may then be required. Routine repairs should usually be completed within 20 working days in line with best practice, although the landlord’s policies do not provide specific timescales. The policy states that external works including works to the roof and guttering are not considered to be routine repairs. If a repair is classified by the landlord as a major repair, it will be completed within 60 days after completion of an inspection. Exceptional circumstances may warrant some major repairs requiring 90 days.
  2. Residents would usually be responsible for the internal decorations of the property. In the case of avoidable damage to decorations caused as a result of action or lack of action by the landlord, the landlord would usually agree to supply materials for the resident to carry out the necessary decorations. The landlord may also agree to carry out the remedial works. If residents suffer the loss of use of individual rooms because of an avoidable delay in carrying out repairs or a result of action or lack of action by the landlord, compensation would be considered. If there are likely to be delays in completing repairs, the landlord would be expected to provide regular updates to the resident, explain the reason for any delay and provide an expected timescale for completion.
  3. In this case, it is not disputed that the length of time taken to complete the work to the resident’s roof and property was significant and that there was poor communication from the landlord during this period. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication. It confirmed that the repairs could have been arranged sooner and that the quality of works should have been completed to an acceptable standard in the first instance.
  4. Following the resident’s initial report of a damp patch in her daughters bedroom on 29 June 2020, the evidence shows that the repair order was cancelled as the resident had requested a new roof. It appears that a further work order was raised in October 2020 but following this, there was little communication regarding the repair issues or the roof replacement and the resident had needed to follow-up on multiple occasions. It is noted that the landlord had attempted to cover the roof with tarpaulin on 23 December 2020 following the resident’s reports that water was now dripping into the property when the weather was bad which was appropriate. Ultimately, this could not be done due to health and safety reasons and the notes indicate that the roof was due to be replaced in January, within a few weeks. 
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the roof replacement was poor and she had needed to follow-up on multiple occasions which was likely to have been inconvenient. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have advised the resident of when the works to her roof were likely to start in order to manage her expectations of how long the work may take. In addition, the landlord has not provided specific information related to the roof repair including when it was initially identified that major repairs were needed or the date the work was completed. Regardless, the evidence shows that the landlord failed to act in accordance with its policy timescales between June 2020 and January 2021 when completing the work which it has acknowledged in its complaint responses.
  6. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the fire which occurred in January 2021, the landlord has not disputed that the fire should not have happened as the contractors should not have been using an open flame as no risk assessment for the equipment was completed. The landlord would not be expected to offer additional compensation in view of the inconvenience caused by the fire. It is noted that the contractors had provided the resident with a £50 gift card by way of apology. Whilst the landlord is ultimately responsible for the contractors actions, the evidence suggests that the contractors had not acted in line with what was expected and it was therefore reasonable for the contractors to put right the inconvenience caused by their actions.  This was reasonable in the circumstances as there is no evidence to suggest that there was any damage caused by the fire itself, however, there was water damage to the residents wallpaper which the contractors agreed to rectify. Ultimately, these events did not significantly affect the overall outcome of the complaint and the compensation offer of a £50 gift card at this stage was reasonable in resolving this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.
  7. Following the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of the plastering work completed, the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the work and agreeing to carry out further work to put things right. It apologised to the resident for the poor quality of work carried out previously and also took steps to speak to its contractors about the issues experienced by the resident and provide feedback. It acknowledged the poor workmanship within its complaint responses and offered compensation in view of the failures identified. 
  8. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  9. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident for its lack of communication, the repair delays and the poor standard of work carried out to the plastering. It put things right by re-attending the property to check the quality of the previous plastering and awarding £300 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident and to acknowledge the loss of the resident’s bedroom for approximately two weeks whilst works were completed, in addition to the £50 gift card offered by the contractors by way of apology. The Ombudsman has also considered the timeframe of the complaint which was in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. This clearly would have impacted the landlord’s services, something which was outside its control.
  10. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. Examples include a resident repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that resident or failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and follow-on works, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £300 as previously agreed if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was found on this basis.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out training for its staff to ensure that residents are provided with regular updates regarding repairs to avoid similar circumstances occurring in the future.