Slough Borough Council (202111254)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111254

Slough Borough Council

17 October 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a leak from his roof;
2. the resident’s reports of leaks from his bathroom;
3. works to the resident’s fences and gate;
4. the resident’s request for assistance with the removal of an asbestos shed roof;
5. the resident’s concerns about mould growth to his property;
6. the resident’s concerns about his front porch;
7. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and his tenancy began on 8 November 2010. The property is an end-of-terrace two-bedroom house and the landlord is a local authority. The property has a front driveway and an adjacent brick shed.
The landlord has a tenancy agreement booklet which includes a section on secure tenants and shows that:
1. it will keep in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the premises, including gutters, and installations for supply of water, gas and electricity, including sinks and toilets;
2. the resident should seek its permission before making any alteration or improvement to the property and it accepts no liability or responsibility for maintaining any alteration or improvement that the resident has made.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out timescales for completion of repairs according to the priority of the job – for instance, emergency repairs (such as a substantial leak) are to be attended to within two hours and completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs are to be completed within three working days and non-urgent repairs are to be completed within 20 working days.
The policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the roof, walls, flooring, toilet, sinks, electrical wiring and fencing to alleyway or estate land while the resident is responsible for toilet seats, ‘non-council floor coverings’, garden sheds and garden dividing fences.
The landlord’s website shows that it “will deal with any asbestos removal, repair or other works” for its tenants. It has an asbestos safety policy that sets out that tenant alterations which may have an asbestos impact are subject to prior agreement before works commence and that approval is usually given if “the tenant arranges for relevant risk assessments to be undertaken and that work is undertaken by suitably qualified contractors”.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a two-stage process with responses required within 10 working days at each stage. After this, the resident has the option of escalating the complaint to this Service or contacting a ‘residents board’.
The landlord’s website shows that it has a risk and insurance department that deals with any claims that may arise out of its activities and that there is a liability claim process and incident form that allows residents to submit claims in instances where the landlord has been negligent.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised a repair order on 14 April 2020 to assess works to a porch wall. It closed the order on 6 July 2020 but there is no note as to what the outcome was.
The landlord raised a repair order on 20 May 2020 to seal around a bath. The order was recorded as complete on 21 May 2020.
The landlord raised a repair order on 6 July 2020 to address a leak under the bath that was affecting the kitchen light below. The job was closed as complete on the same date with a note that the leak from a burst pipe under the bath was fixed and electrics made safe. It added that a faulty kitchen light was replaced on 9 July 2020.
The landlord raised repair orders on 7 and 16 July 2020 to address a cracked kitchen ceiling and damaged kitchen units. The jobs were closed as complete on 14 and 23 July 2020 but no notes were made of the outcome.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 16 July 2020 on the grounds that:
1. he had lost £200 in pay due to misinformation about repairs with missed appointments on 6-7 and 14 July 2020 and new appointments given to him for both 21 and 23 July 2020 for a plumbing job;
2. many jobs were logged four to five months previously and were not done, including roof re-alignment works;
3. he had reported an issue with bees getting into brickwork cracks but nothing had been done;
4. a bathroom pipe had leaked causing damage over 48 hours to his kitchen and taps were still leaking.
The landlord raised and completed a repair order on 16 July 2020, responding to the resident’s report of a dripping tap.
The landlord raised a repair order on 23 July 2020 for a multi-trader to attend to all plumbing and carpentry jobs. The job was recorded as complete on 3 August 2020, the landlord noting that it had resealed the bath.
The landlord raised repair orders on 24 July 2020 to attend to a cover over the electricity consumer unit, paint the kitchen and address damaged roof tiles and lining. These jobs were recorded as complete on 28 July 2020 but no notes were made of what works had been done.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 29 July 2020 as follows:
1. it apologised for failures to complete brickwork, carpentry and plastering works on 6,7, 8 and 14 July 2020;
2. it was investigating why this had happened and was intending to visit on 3 August 2020 to discuss the complaint and complete multi-trader works.
The landlord closed further repair orders on 5 August 2020 and 21 August 2020 in response to reports of tripping electrics and kitchen decorations needed but no notes were made of the works undertaken.
The landlord raised repair orders in early September 2020 for a guttering leak, chimney breast works and a roof insulation top-up.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 September 2020, asking for his complaint to be escalated as the roof was still an outstanding problem.
The landlord raised repair orders on 5 October 2020 to address a bathroom leak that was affecting the kitchen. It recorded the job as complete on the same date, noting that the leak had been from the resident’s own installation. It noted three days later that the kitchen light had been changed but that ceiling plasterwork repairs were also needed (it later raised a job for 10 metres of ceiling plastering).
The resident chased a complaint response on 6 and 13 October 2020, explaining that he had not received a full response to his July 2020 complaint, there was a mould issue due to low air circulation, he had not agreed to his boundary gate-fence being permanently removed and he had asked for the shed asbestos to be taken away but been told the asbestos was not a problem.
The landlord raised a repair order on 13 October 2020 due to reports of damaged fencing. It closed the job as complete on 19 October 2020, noting that the boundary was with a nextdoor neighbour who was probably responsible for the fence and that it was not one of its own fences.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 October 2020, advising him that garden fences were his responsibility so it would not be replacing them (following damage due to wind). The resident disputed this on the same date, claiming fence responsibility was not his according to the tenancy agreement, and the landlord sent a repairs responsibilities information document to him on 3 November 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 October 2020, 5 and 10 November 2020, asking for the roofing report to be provided and for his complaint to be escalated. The landlord and resident exchanged further emails over the subsequent days, organising an inspection for 16 November 2020.
The landlord raised a repair order on 18 November 2020 regarding a roof leak. It noted that it had already inspected a couple of days earlier and the job had been passed to its roofer.
The resident chased the landlord on 27 November 2020, confirming the inspection had happened a couple of weeks earlier with photographs being taken of the loft and a leak from roof beams identified.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2020, confirming the outcome of its inspection as follows:
1. it agreed works were necessary to fit front fence and low-level gates, investigate the front porch, board and skim the kitchen ceiling, check all extractor fans, change the kitchen extractor pipework, carry out interim roof and gutter repairs, add further loft insulation and do some mould washing;
2. the rear fence to the left-hand side of the property and bottom of the garden were not its responsibility as they did not back onto communal land;
3. the inside of the roof had been fitted with polythene to prevent water dripping through and it would look at when the roof replacement could be done.
The landlord’s repair records show that it completed the September 2020 order to carry out chimney breast and guttering works on 4 December 2020.
The landlord raised a repair order on 8 December 2020 for a further increase in loft insulation (it later recorded that more insulation was fitted in January 2021 but the job was not completed until May 2021 when it noted that the insulation could not be done until the roof was fitted).
The resident submitted a new complaint on 2 January 2021 on the grounds that:
1. he had reported a serious bathroom pipework leak at 7am on 1 January 2021 which affected the bathroom, first floor landing, living room, kitchen and electric and gas cupboards;
2. he rang again after 24 hours and had fortunately managed to locate the stopcock;
3. when he called again, he was told it was a holiday the day before and no job had been raised;
4. each room now had water stains, floorboards were lifting and there was damage to ceiling lights.
The resident asked the landlord on 2 January 2021 for contact details for its contractor as he had never got an answer regarding his missed appointment compensation. He wrote to it further on 4 January 2021, advising that:
1. he did not know why it could not replace his garden fence in line with his tenancy agreement;
2. the roof needed to be replaced and he had been assured chimney works would be done by the summer;
3. the bathroom pipework delay had caused unnecessary damage to his kitchen ceiling, wooden floor, upstairs landing, gas and electric cupboards;
4. there was mould in most rooms and in a cupboard (which had caused him to lose £150 worth of clothing).
The landlord responded to the resident on 4 January 2021, answering his points as follows:
1. the fence between properties was tenant responsibility but it had agreed to install three-four fence panels and a gate at the front of the property and replace five-six panels at the bottom of the garden (as these were boundary fences);
2. it was awaiting a quote for the interim roof repairs to stop the leak and the chimney would be addressed as part of this;
3. it had agreed to check the property extractor fans;
4. it provided guidance on its repair obligations.
The landlord raised repair orders on 4 January 2021 due to reports of a leak coming from a sink (that had caused a flood on 1 January 2021), a damaged kitchen ceiling and light and a toilet seat repair. It noted that the leak was fixed on the same day and the kitchen plasterboard job was completed on 22 January 2021. The toilet seat job was closed later that month with a note showing this was the resident’s responsibility as he had fitted his own toilet.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 January 2021, adding that:
1. it was awaiting a date from its scaffold contractor and new insulation was to be fitted on 15 January 2021;
2. the bathroom fan was to be changed on 13 January 2021 and various walls and ceilings would be mould washed on 20 January 2021;
3. the front porch would be investigated on 19 January 2021 (for which a repair order was raised on 8 January 2021);
4. the kitchen outlet pipe would be changed on 20 January 2021 and the ceiling would be boarded and skimmed on 1-2 February 2021.
The landlord raised repair orders on 8 January 2021 to check all fans in the property, change the bathroom extractor fan and change the kitchen outlet pipe. It recorded these as completed on 13 and 20 January 2021 with notes showing that the kitchen extractor fan was renewed.
The landlord also raised a repair order on 8 January 2021 to assess the front fence and low-level gates. It noted that these had been measured up on 14 January 2021.
The landlord raised a repair order on 18 January 2021 to replace eight fallen back fence panels – it recorded this job as completed on 4 February 2021 (with notes showing 11 posts and 10 panels had been installed).
The landlord raised a repair order on 20 January 2021 to replace a damaged toilet seat. It noted on 29 January 2021 that the resident had fitted his own toilet so this was his own responsibility to repair.
The resident approached the landlord again on 21 January 2021, indicating he had experienced difficulty in getting a contractor response and not received a response about his bathroom pipework leak complaint.
The landlord raised a repair order on 22 January 2021 due to a report of a trip hazard caused by flooring lifting following a leak (the contractor subsequently noted on 24 March 2021 that the hallway and living room laminate floor had been damaged and the matter had been referred back to the landlord).
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 January 2021, advising there were issues still outstanding, including:
1. no date for the fencing works and lack of clarity on the type and size of front fence panels;
2. the contractor had refused to do the kitchen fan outlet pipe work;
3. nobody had attended to the front porch 19 January 2021 appointment;
4. the insulation had been fitted but there was no date for the roof renewal still;
5. there was supposed to be a plastic pipe to assist with airflow to a clothing cupboard that had become mouldy;
6. he disagreed with the landlord’s previous advice that no cover was needed to the electrical consumer unit.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 January 2021, querying the target timescales for emergency repairs and the lack of leak remedial works progress.
The landlord raised repair orders on 27 January 2021 to make roof hip tiles weathertight and stop the leak to the rear guttering, address mould to a clothing cupboard and fix a cover to an electrical unit. It closed all these jobs as complete on 1 February 2021 but noted that scaffolding was needed for the roof works.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails on 28 January 2021 as follows:
1. the resident alleged the kitchen extractor fan was not in the correct location and was not powerful enough;
2. the landlord and resident disagreed over whether the kitchen outlet pipe had been repaired;
3. the landlord said it was installing a low-level fence to the front of the property and a single pair of gates but the resident continued to ask questions about the size and whether it was possible to have a second gate instead of all fence panels;
4. the resident said there had been leaks through the roof into his bedroom as recently as the day before.
The resident submitted a complaint on 28 January 2021 on the grounds that:
1. he raised queries about responsibility for repairs for various items depending on who installed them;
2. he specifically mentioned responsibility for bathroom pipework repairs where he had renewed a toilet and wash hand basin because they were not fit for purpose;
3. he indicated it was unfair that the landlord refused to address repairs to the bathroom just because he had improved some of the items and questioned that this was part of his tenancy conditions;
4. a bathroom leak had caused his hallway and living room flooring to lift.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 January 2021 and wrote further to the resident on 4 February 2021, offering updates as follows:
1. its contractor would attend to the kitchen outlet pipe on 11 February 2021 and renew the kitchen extractor fan on 15 February 2021;
2. the electrical consumer unit was too old for a new cover to be found so it had arranged a renewal appointment for 16 February 2021;
3. the front fence-gate works would provide an opening of seven-eight feet for vehicle access;
4. it was still awaiting scaffold and roofing works dates;
5. a trial hole for the front porch investigation was to be made on 19 February 2021;
6. it queried whether the cupboard ventilation was working at all and said a second mould wash had been arranged for 18 February 2021;
7. it understood that the 10 garden fence panels had been installed that day.
The landlord raised repair orders on 4 February 2021 to investigate the front porch, change the kitchen outlet pipe, install a new kitchen extractor fan and fit a new fuse board unit. It recorded the extractor fan, fuse board and front porch works as completed on 15, 17 and 19 February 2021 respectively, noting that it had built a new brick wall for the front porch job.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 15 February 2021 due to a lack of response. He added that the bathroom leak had been caused by an operative loosening the toilet with a view to replacing the toilet seat but that the landlord was now refusing to be involved. He advised that the living room and floors were still damaged.
The landlord’s internal emails from February 2021 show that it had told the resident the roof would be replaced that year and that there were fundamental issues with the roof but it could not give a specific date yet. It recorded that it was awaiting a scaffolding date for interim repairs to stop water ingress during rainfall.
The resident chased complaint responses on 24 February 2021. He added that:
1. the kitchen fan had now been correctly installed and the kitchen ceiling painted but he was waiting to hear about the outlet pipe and a light;
2. the front porch had been repaired and new electrical consumer unit fitted;
3. there were still no dates for the roof repair and roof renewal works;
4. he was waiting on updates on the cupboard damp and further mould work;
5. he asked if a smaller front gate could be installed so the large vehicle gates did not have to be used all the time and queried why the vehicle gate would not be 12 foot as the landlord’s driveway policy required;
6. there had been no complaint responses to his concerns about missed appointments in July 2020 and the contractor’s delay in handling a bathroom leak (for which flooring and living room ceiling damage had not been inspected).
The landlord’s repairs records show that it recorded a kitchen lighting job as complete on 25 February 2021.
The landlord’s records show that it exchanged emails with the resident during late February to mid-March 2021 regarding alterations plans and the possible presence of asbestos in his shed. The resident asked the landlord what responsibility it may have for removal of any asbestos as part of side extension works his neighbour was undertaking.
The landlord replied to the resident on 4 March 2021, explaining it had three separate complaints for him which it had combined and escalated to its final complaint stage. It said that it would respond by 18 March 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7-8 March 2021, clarifying that:
1. one complaint was about its contractor’s offer to pay compensation which had not been actioned and delays in its handling of roofing works;
2. he queried the size of the driveway gates (suggesting they should be four yards) and if a small gate would be fitted as well as driveway gates;
3. a rear fence had not been installed properly so was buckling, continuous cold air entered his bedroom through a cupboard vent and the kitchen extractor fan did not work properly (which he attributed to the type of pipe);
4. he wanted the living room ceiling repaired and flooring and carpets checked and replaced, the toilet seat repaired and an explanation on repair timescales and responsibilities.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised orders on 19 March 2021 to address poorly installed fencing and a cracked ceiling and an order on 23 March 2021 to consider the presence of asbestos to the shed as the resident had reported a leak.
The resident’s MP chased a complaint response from the landlord on 30 March 2021.
The landlord raised a repair order on 7 April 2021 to consider damage to living room and hallway floors following a leak, including laminate flooring (a note was again made on 22 April 2021, raising the presence of laminate flooring).
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 April 2021, advising that it would respond to the complaint in full by 30 April 2021 but that it had scheduled fencing works to be done on 19 April 2021 with additional insulation to be installed to the loft and ceiling damage to be checked on 22 April 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 April 2021, asking why there had been a complaint handling delay and expressing continued concerns given he said there had been a further contractor missed appointment which he had been told was due to a trainee being given the job who did not know what they were doing.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it attended to the rear fencing job on 19 April 2021 and photographs had been passed on for consideration.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 April 2021, updating it that:
1. nobody had attended that day to the appointments for insulation and ceiling damage;
2. the landlord and its contractor did not seem to be communicating properly about the broken fence issue.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 April 2021, apologising for its contractor missing appointments and advising that:
1. the damaged ceiling was now to be checked on 10 May 2021 and insulation to be topped up on 21 May 2021;
2. it had authorised replacement of a rear fence but would not be doing so because the resident had told its contractor, during a visit, that it was the side fence that needed replacement not the rear;
3. it had instructed its contractor to install one pair of gates to the front which was the required amount to allow vehicle access and this had been done;
4. it was not responsible for flooring replacements and it directed the resident to make an insurance claim for any floor damage;
5. it was still finalising its roofing programme so could not specify a date for this but had identified interim repairs (ridge-hip intersection to be made watertight, rear hip tiles to be re-pointed and re-fitted and a leaking rear gutter) for which scaffolding would be erected;
6. an electrical supervisor would attend on 5 May 2021 to check a cupboard vent cover and assess a kitchen extractor fan;
7. it said that its resources were under strain, it was covering the work of different departments and its contractor had limited resources due to staff being away because of Covid-19.
The landlord raised another repair order on 30 April 2021 to address the roof repairs (to hip tiles, guttering and pointing); it subsequently recorded in early May 2021 that scaffolding was needed.
The resident replied to the landlord on 4 May 2021, asking to escalate the complaint on the grounds that:
1. he disagreed that there was any confusion about the fence in question and confirmed that he had always highlighted that it was the side fence that needed addressing and both the side and rear fences were boundaries anyway;
2. he wanted to know when the rear fence could be attended to and when the side fence (that the contractor had put up) would be corrected;
3. he did not agree he should use his insurance to claim for damage to floorboards when this was contributed to by the contractor’s failure to attend within its emergency timescales;
4. he had lost money and been caused inconvenience by having to remove furniture to allow flooring inspections and measuring up, only to be told these works were not going to be done;
5. he understood there was no specific roof replacement timescale yet but queried how the landlord could allow the roof leak into his bedroom to continue since it was identified in October 2020 and why it could not be done once the scaffolding was up;
6. there had been no follow up to the contractor’s promise to consider £450 compensation for failed appointments;
7. he had reported bees were entering brickwork gaps and an inspection had established front porch works had been faulty but neither had been actioned.
The resident forwarded the above correspondence to the landlord’s chief executive on 10 May 2021 and the landlord acknowledged it on 11 May 2021, adding that the stage three complaint stage was a tenant panel and his concerns were with its repairs and maintenance senior management. The resident advised it on the same day that there had been a further missed appointment the day before for the ceiling inspection job.
Following further emails exchanged between the landlord and resident, the latter advised on 13 May 2021 that he did not wish for a tenant panel given the delays to date and would instead approach the Ombudsman. The landlord confirmed the relevant escalation details to the resident on 14 May 2021.

Summary of Events after landlord complaint process

The landlord conducted an asbestos survey of the property on 19 May 2021 and a report was produced the following day, concluding that “no asbestos-based materials were visually or positively identified within the property” but “care must be taken during future works”. This included reference to what it described as a cement sheet shed roof.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 20 May 2021 as follows:
1. it confirmed that it was working on dates for the roof replacement programme but scaffolding was to be erected for the interim repairs which it would obtain a quote for when possible;
2. it would book fencing works in with the resident;
3. it had been liaising with the resident and offered a detailed response on 30 April 2021, after which he had raised further queries that it was working through;
4. its contractor acknowledged there had been delays and missed appointments in this case but was working hard to reduce the Covid-19 related backlog.
The landlord raised a repair order on 14 June 2021 to straighten fence and fence posts at the property but not to the back fence.
The landlord recorded the March 2021 cracked ceiling repair order as completed on 28 June 2021, noting that the job had not been attended and a re-visit would need to be re-arranged.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 July 2021, complaining that scaffolding was erected in early May 2021 but no works had been done. The landlord noted on 5 August 2021 that the resident had complained about the scaffolding outside the property.
The landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident on 16 August 2021, advising that it was looking to strike the scaffolding as the landlord would be in touch with him about the roof replacement.
The resident and his MP approached this Service in August 2021 on the grounds that:
1. he had been waiting for five years for the roof renewal, during which time there were significant leaks and a leak into his bedroom was yet to be resolved;
2. he had lost £400 in income by having to wait for planned site visits that the contractor missed;
3. scaffolding for interim roof repairs had been erected in May 2021 but no works had been done and the scaffolding was expensive and causing inconvenience and damage to his cars;
4. there had been further leaks from a bathroom pipe that had caused a flood in the property in January 2021, leading to widespread damage and a concern about the electrics (and yet the contractor failed to attend within 24 hours);
5. he had been told to make an insurance claim for damage to carpets but did not believe this was reasonable given the damage was caused by the contractor failing to attend within the required timescale;
6. he had been told to paint his living room ceiling following the bathroom pipe leak but he wanted the ceiling to be checked;
7. there was asbestos present in his shed which the landlord had told him to arrange the removal of;
8. a rear boundary fence had been erected incorrectly and needed rectifying plus repairs to a front porch remained outstanding;
9. a bathroom fan cover and grill needed attention and he had asked for a bedroom fan to be installed to combat mould growth;
10. there were external walls that needed to be re-pointed and cracks filled to address bee infestations;
11. the landlord had offered to assist him in fitting a front gate and fence but he needed this in writing.
The landlord recorded the June 2021 fencing job as complete on 1 September 2021 but noted that follow-on works were needed as the fence posts could not be aligned.
The landlord’s records show it noted on 3 September 2021 that it had visited the property and recorded that a shed had been partially demolished and that it had confirmed that no asbestos was present. It added that it had previously been in discussion with the resident and his neighbour as the latter had wished to demolish and rebuild the brick shed as part of their side extension works.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 September 2021, advising that scaffolding for the roof job was still in place despite him still having no update as to when the roof replacement would be done. The landlord has since advised this Service that roof replacement works were carried out around September 2021.
The landlord noted in February 2022 that it had signed off the roof as done and removed the scaffolding on 30 November 2021 and that it had apologised to the resident for the delay.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Roofing works

The resident has advised that he has been awaiting roof replacement works for several years. During the period covered by this investigation, the landlord was aware at least as early as July 2020 that roof repairs were required. It raised related repair orders that month, to address damaged roof tiles, and in September 2020, to repair a gutter and chimney breast (and install additional insulation).
Although the landlord noted a roof inspection in mid-November 2020, which led to confirmation that there was a leak, there is no evidence that any related repairs were progressed by the time the resident’s complaint exhausted its complaints process in April 2021 (with the exception of some additional insulation being fitted).
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that even non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days. Although it was reasonable that the landlord sought to address the roof repairs through a wider major works programme, it was inappropriate that it delayed in completing any interim works to at least make the resident’s property watertight, particularly given he had told it that the leak was affecting his bedroom. Evidence seen by this Service indicates that scaffolding was not erected until May 2021 and works were not carried out until September 2021 (and not signed off until November 2021). This meant that there was an inappropriate delay of well over 12 months in the landlord conducting any of the required repairs to the resident’s roof. This delay was excessive even taking into account the impact of Covid-19 on the landlord’s repairs service.
During this period of delay, the resident regularly chased the landlord for progress. The landlord was unable to provide a likely timescale for the roof renewal except to advise that it would be during 2021 and similarly failed to advise him between mid-2020 and mid-2021 when it would erect scaffolding to complete interim repairs. This lack of meaningful communication during the delay period will inevitably have left the resident uncertain as to how the landlord intended to address his concerns about the roof and will have been particularly distressing given he had told it that the leak was affecting his living conditions.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably between July 2020 and late 2021 in completing works that it had identified as necessary to the resident’s roof. It failed to offer a plan of action to the resident during this period or to progress the interim repairs that it had agreed were required.

Bathroom leaks

During the period covered by this complaint, there were at least three leaks from the resident’s bathroom into rooms below. The initial bathroom leak was reported by the resident on 6 July 2020 and the landlord’s repairs records show that it attended on the same day to stop a leak from a burst pipe and that it made electrics safe before replacing a kitchen light a few days later. This was in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy to address emergency works within 24 hours and complete urgent repairs within three working days and was therefore appropriate.
Another bathroom leak report was made in October 2020 and the landlord again raised and completed an order on the same date in accordance with its repairs policy timescales. It is unclear from the evidence seen by this Service what works, if any, were undertaken but the landlord recorded that the leak was from an installation that the resident had fitted. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will not accept liability or responsibility for any property alteration made by the resident so it was not obliged to repair a faulty installation of the resident’s and he did not query this approach before another bathroom leak occurred a few months later.
The resident later expressed concern about the landlord’s decision not to repair a toilet seat but there was similarly no obligation on the landlord to do so and its repairs policy confirms that residents are responsible for such repairs.
The resident made reports of a further leak from his bathroom in January 2021. He has advised that he informed the landlord of this on 1 January 2021 but the earliest report seen by this Service was the complaint the resident submitted on 2 January 2021. The landlord raised a repair order on 4 January 2021 and noted that it stopped a leak from the sink on this same date. Given the resident’s correspondence of 2 January 2021 was sent over a weekend and there is no evidence that the report was seen by its staff until 4 January 2021, the landlord responded appropriately by attending the property on the same day it was made aware of the leak.
Although the landlord’s initial responses to these leaks were appropriate, there were unreasonable delays in it completing the follow-on remedial works. It raised repair orders in July 2020 to address damage to the kitchen ceiling and some units and, although these orders were closed later that month, there is no evidence that any works were undertaken (and the resident has alleged that appointments were missed). It similarly closed a kitchen decorations repair order in August 2020 without any notes to confirm the works were completed and it was recorded in October 2020 that extensive ceiling re-plastering was still necessary.
These kitchen plastering works remained outstanding at the point of the further January 2021 bathroom leak and were completed later that month with a record in February 2021 that painting had also been done. Given the landlord was aware of the need for remedial works from July 2020 and its policy requires even non-urgent repairs to be carried out within 20 working days, it was inappropriate that it took more than six months for these to be completed, even accounting for some inevitable delay due to the impact of Covid-19 on its ability to carry out internal repairs.
The resident also made reports from January 2021 that the leak from the bathroom had lifted his flooring. Although the landlord raised a repair order that month to inspect this damage, it was not until April 2021 that it told the resident that it was not responsible for flooring when it recommended that he make an insurance claim. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that residents are responsible for ‘non-council floor coverings’ so its decision not to carry out remedial works to laminate flooring was appropriate. However, given the resident’s concern that the landlord’s delay in resolving a leak had caused the damage, it was unreasonable that it failed to signpost the resident as to how he could make a liability claim or direct him to its risk and insurance department.
In summary, the landlord responded within an appropriate timescale to three reports made by the resident of leaks from his bathroom in July 2020, October 2020 and January 2021. However, it delayed unreasonably between July 2020 and January 2021 in rectifying damage that had been caused to the kitchen and did not make the resident aware of the potential for making a liability claim in regard to flooring damage.

Fences and gate

The resident initially asked the landlord in October 2020 to repair damaged fencing to the rear of his property. The landlord’s repairs policy shows that it is responsible for boundary fencing but the resident is responsible for dividing fences between gardens. It was therefore under no obligation to repair the fences to the rear of the resident’s property and it communicated this appropriately to the resident in November-December 2020.
The resident also made a request in October 2020 for the landlord to install fence panels and a gate to the front of his property, along the boundary of his driveway. It is unclear, based on evidence provided to this Service, how the previous set of gates and fence came to be removed but it was appropriate for the landlord to consider and agree to the resident’s request given the boundary was on to public land.
The landlord did not confirm that the front gate and fence had been installed until April 2021. However, given it had to measure and arrange the installation, there was discussion with the resident during January-February 2021 about the specification of the job and this was during a period when non-emergency works were limited due to the Covid-19 pandemic (including two national lockdowns), it completed these works within a reasonable timescale.
Although the landlord had previously decided that the rear garden fences were not its responsibility, it told the resident in January 2021 that it would renew several fence panels after all and completed these works in early February 2021. This demonstrated that the landlord was willing to use its discretion to carry out works that it had previously determined to be outside of its obligations.
The resident informed the landlord in early March 2021 that some of the newly installed fence panels in the rear garden were buckling and the landlord inspected accordingly in April 2021. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to check what works were needed and there was some confusion as to what fencing work it had agreed to, the repairs were not recorded as complete until September 2021. This was well outside of the landlord’s repairs timescales and therefore represented an unreasonable delay.
In summary, the landlord’s actions in initially refusing to conduct rear fencing works and completing the installation of fencing and gates to the front of the property were appropriate. However, once it agreed to complete rear fencing works after all, there was an unreasonable delay between March-September 2021 in it putting right repairs that the resident said had not been completed correctly on the first attempt.

Asbestos shed

The resident initially raised concerns about the presence of asbestos through his complaint escalation correspondence during early October 2020. He told the landlord that he had asked if an asbestos roof could be removed from his shed but that it had said there was no problem with asbestos. The landlord’s repairs policy shows that residents are responsible for maintenance of garden sheds. However, given this was a brick-built structure and its website shows that it will assist with asbestos-related works and check asbestos safety when residents are conducting alterations, the landlord was obliged to at least check whether asbestos was present and satisfy itself on the safety of the removal plan.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord inspected the resident’s shed to check whether asbestos was present or offered any guidance to him until he enquired about this again during February-March 2021. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to offer clarity on this over the course of the previous few months and this meant that the resident had to chase an outcome.
Nevertheless, after the matter was again discussed with the resident during February-March 2021 and it became clear that the issue needed to be checked in advance of side extension works by a neighbour, the landlord raised a repair order and had obtained an asbestos report by mid-May 2021. Given the impact of Covid-19 on repairs backlogs, it was reasonable for the landlord to organise an inspection within two months of the resident’s chaser emails and the report confirmed that there was no asbestos present to the shed so the landlord was not obliged to assist with the removal of the corrugated roof.
In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to establish that there was no asbestos present to the resident’s shed roof before deciding that it did not need to assist with works to remove the corrugated sheet roof. However, there was an unreasonable delay in its responding to the resident’s initial request which caused him to have to chase it a few months later.

Mould growth

The resident initially raised concerns about poor air circulation in his property during early October 2020 when he told the landlord that this had caused mould growth. The landlord responded in early December 2020 when it confirmed that it would check all the extractor fans in the property and change kitchen extractor pipework and it recorded these repair orders as complete in mid-late January 2021.
Although this was outside its repairs policy timescales, given this covered a period when there were two national lockdowns that severely impacted the ability of landlords to complete internal works, there was no service failure on the part of the landlord at this time and it demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously by taking steps to improve air flow in the property.
The resident reported in late January 2021 that the kitchen outlet pipe works had not been completed, a kitchen fan had been installed in an incorrect location and that there was still an issue with air flow to a clothing cupboard. The landlord’s records show that it responded by asking questions about the cupboard and completing further repair orders for the kitchen pipe and kitchen extractor fan renewal in February 2021. Its repairs records also indicate that two mould washes were undertaken during January-February 2021. These actions were again appropriate as the landlord completed works in accordance with its non-urgent repairs timescales and attempted to gather more information about what the problem with the clothing cupboard may be.
In early March 2021, the resident raised further concerns about the kitchen extractor fan and told the landlord that continuous cold air came into his bedroom through the clothing cupboard. The landlord advised in its final complaint response in April 2021 that it would arrange for another assessment of the kitchen fan and investigate a cupboard vent. This demonstrates that the landlord remained willing to investigate the resident’s concerns about mould growth and ventilation in the property. It is unclear what the outcome of this further investigation was and the resident advised this Service in August 2021 that he had asked for additional ventilation measures – a recommendation is therefore made below in this regard.
In summary, the landlord responded reasonably during October 2020 to April 2021 to the resident’s concerns about mould growth and ventilation by investigating the functionality of extractor fans, installing and repairing the kitchen fan and conducting mould washes.

Front porch

The landlord initially raised a repair order in April 2020 to assess a wall by the front porch and it recorded this work as complete in July 2020. It is unclear from the evidence seen by this Service how this order came to be raised and what the outcome of the assessment was. Although the resident does not appear to have chased the matter or raised it in his initial complaint to the landlord, it is unreasonable that the landlord advised in December 2020 that it still needed to investigate the front porch and did not communicate the outcome of its July 2020 assessment to him.
The resident advised in his January 2021 complaint correspondence that the landlord’s contractor had failed to attend the appointment that month to investigate the front porch. Although the landlord did not address this alleged missed appointment and there is no record of the outcome of its investigations into the front porch, both it and the resident acknowledged that a new wall had been built during February 2021. This demonstrates that, although it failed to retain records of its diagnosis of the problem to the front porch, the landlord completed a wall rebuild within a reasonable timescale once the resident chased it for an outcome.
The resident indicated to the landlord after the end of the complaints process that works to the front porch had been established to be faulty and told this Service in August 2021 that some related repairs remained outstanding – a recommendation has therefore been made below in this regard.
In summary, the landlord failed to demonstrate how it investigated the initial concerns raised about the resident’s front porch and what the outcome of this was. This meant that the resident needed to chase the matter up several months later, after which it acted appropriately by carrying out a wall rebuild albeit it remained unclear after the complaints process if further works were necessary.

Complaint handling

The resident initially submitted a complaint to the landlord on 16 July 2020 – this related to delays in roofing works, the handling of a bathroom pipework leak, bees entering cracks in his external brickwork and several missed contractor appointments. The landlord’s complaints policy required it to respond to the complaint within 10 working days.
Although it did act in accordance with this timescale and acknowledged that there had been missed appointments, it is unreasonable that the landlord failed to offer any redress for this (beyond an apology), did not consider the resident’s concerns about lost wages and gave no explanation as to whether it agreed that there had been delays with roofing and bathroom pipe repairs. It also indicated that its investigations into the failed appointments were ongoing but did not subsequently provide the resident with any outcome to this or offer complaint escalation rights.
The landlord was also silent on the issues of bees that the resident raised in his complaint. Although there is no evidence that this matter had already been reported to the landlord and the resident did not raise it again until May 2021 (after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process), it is unreasonable that the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered this point.
The resident chased the landlord for a full complaint response during September-October 2020, advising that his original July 2020 complaint had not been answered. Although the landlord corresponded with the resident on several occasions over subsequent months about the substantive repairs issues and inspection outcomes, it failed to offer any clarity until March 2021 as to how it was dealing with the complaint itself and at what stage the complaint was at. This was inappropriate and will have left the resident uncertain as to how his complaint was being investigated.
When the landlord re-considered the complaint in March 2021, it established that it had logged a few separate complaints and told the resident that it would combine these and provide a final response by mid-March 2021. Given the numerous issues the resident had raised as part of his various complaints, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to simplify the process by offering a final complaint response that covered all of the outstanding complaint matters.
However, the landlord subsequently delayed by several weeks in providing a final complaint response. Although it offered a holding email in early April 2021, it was unreasonable that it only did so after the resident’s MP had chased the outstanding response. Further, when the landlord did issue its final complaint response on 30 April 2021, although it identified delays and missed appointments, it again only apologised and did not offer any other redress to the resident for the inconvenience these failings had caused him or demonstrate that it had learned lessons from its handling of his repairs. This meant that it did not act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and it is of concern that its complaint response again did not include any signposting as to how the resident could escalate the complaint.
In summary, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint escalation requests, did not offer clarity for several months as to how it was considering his complaint and failed to fully investigate all of the concerns he had raised.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a leak from his roof;
2. the related complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of leaks from his bathroom;
2. works to the resident’s fences and gate;
3. the resident’s request for assistance with the removal of an asbestos shed roof;
4. the resident’s concerns about his front porch.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about mould growth to his property.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably during 2020-21 in carrying out interim roofing works to stop a leak pending the completion of a roof replacement.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in carrying out kitchen remedial works following leaks from the bathroom and did not offer the resident the recourse of making a liability claim for damage caused to his flooring.
The landlord delayed by six months in correcting fencing works in the resident’s back garden.
The landlord initially delayed in responding to the resident’s request that it assist with removal of a shed roof that he suspected may contain asbestos.
The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and improve ventilation in the resident’s property in response to his concerns about mould growth.
The landlord failed to keep records of its July 2020 assessment of the resident’s front porch or communicate the outcome of this investigation to him which meant he had to chase it for progress several months later.
The landlord contributed to delays through the complaints process and failed to fully answer the resident’s concerns.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. signpost the resident as to how a liability claim can be made for damage to his flooring;
3. advise him how it will respond to his concerns that brickwork and pointing repairs are needed to prevent bees entering his external walls.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1075, made up of:
1. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the service failure identified in its handling of his reports of a leak from his roof;
2. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the service failure identified in its handling of his reports of leaks from his bathroom;
3. £125 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by the service failure in its handling of works to his fences and gate;
4. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by the service failure identified in its handling of his request for assistance with the removal of an asbestos shed roof;
5. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by the service failure identified in its handling of his concerns about his front porch;
6. £250 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by the service failure identified in its handling of the related complaint.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to review the resident’s missed appointments claims between July 2020 and April 2021 and write to him to confirm whether it will pay compensation for these.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to write to the resident to confirm the outcome of its investigations into ventilation and mould growth since the end the complaints process and advise him whether it is willing to install additional fans to the property (if not, it should explain why).
If it has not already done so, the landlord to arrange a post-inspection of the works to the front porch; it should then write to the resident within two weeks of the date of the inspection to confirm the outcome and the timescale for any remedial works required.
The landlord to review its handling of this complaint and ensure that its complaint responses include escalation rights and that its processes are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code; if it has not already done so, it should complete and publish the annual Code self-assessment.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.