London Borough of Croydon (202016200)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016200

Croydon Council

14 November 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 repairs to the resident’s property following damage caused by leaks from the property above.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has vulnerabilities which are known to the landlord.
  2. On the 12 December 2020, the landlord repaired a leak in the bath waste pipe in the property above the resident’s. On 16 December 2020, the landlord raised the following repair at the resident’s property: “make safe living room ceiling…[resident] advised the ceiling looks like it will fall through.” The following day, a job was raised to test the ceiling for asbestos. On 14 January 2021, the following repair was raised; re-plaster living room ceiling…asbestos test negative in living room”. This was scheduled to be undertaken on 5 March 2021.
  3. The appointment on 5 March was met, but the landlord’s operative discovered that there was still a leak. The corresponding repair job noted “plumber to remedy leak from above: plasterers have taken down ceiling but need to source and remedy leak”. This leak was subsequently identified as being related to an unvented cylinder from the property above and was rectified on 29 March 2021.
  4. On 10 March 2021 the landlord submitted a decant referral form on the resident’s behalf. It said it made this on the resident’s behalf, due to the changing situation as a result of the second leak. The request noted the resident was staying with her mother at the time, but she wanted the resident to move out by 14 March 2021. It noted that “(the) front room ceiling requires complete re-plastering and due to the design of the property one has to enter the kitchen from the front room and is not ideal with two young children”. It therefore proposed a temporary decant for two weeks while the repairs were completed.
  5. On 16 March 2021 the resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy the repairs remained unresolved since December 2020. She was also unhappy she had been offered temporary accommodation in a B&B, and said this was not suitable for her family, due to having no cooking facilities. She advised the landlord she would withhold rent from the end of that month, until a suitable offer of accommodation was made, or until she received written confirmation that the landlord would repair all damages caused by the leak.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 25 May 2021. It acknowledged service failings in that it had delayed in tracing the leak to the unvented cylinder in the flat above, and that plastering works had been booked in prior to this without checking that the leak had been resolved. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said it would provide feedback to its contractors. It apologised it had taken a considerable time to rectify the issues and offered the resident £250 for inconvenience and the delays.
  7. Following this, the resident made an insurance claim with the landlord’s in-house insurance team, for damages that she had suffered as a result of the leak. It was unclear when this was made, although the resident said that she had sent in receipts for certain personal items on 5 May 2021 and 18 June 2021. It was also unclear what damages the claim consisted of, although the resident has said she sought reimbursement for damaged personal possessions which included flooring. An insurance claim outcome was issued to the resident on 6 August 2021, which rejected the claim and recommended she make a claim via home contents insurance if she had this.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 August 2021 as she was unhappy at not having received compensation. The landlord said the resident had asked for reimbursement for rent from December 2020 until February 2021 and £500 for emotional distress. In correspondence with the resident in November 2021, the landlord advised her previous correspondence had been forwarded to its insurance team, but the claim was again rejected. It said its compensation offer of £250 still stood, but as the insurance claim was now closed it would consider the latest correspondence as an escalation request, if she wished to move her complaint to stage two.
  9. The resident confirmed she wanted to escalate her complaint in January 2022, and the landlord issued a final response on 11 February 2022. It again apologised for the overall time taken in fixing the leak and carrying out the repairs. It explained “these events took place during a time where social distancing measures were required, and the teams were operating with a sometimes-reduced workforce due to Covid related absences.” It said having reviewed the case, it believed its original £250 compensation offer was sufficient. It said it would not reimburse the resident for rent paid from December 2020 to February 2021 as the resident elected to vacate the property at that time. It also highlighted it had also given the resident a rent freeze as a way of assistance. It confirmed its complaints process had concluded and included referral details for this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  10. The resident referred her complaint to this service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She believed that the landlord had underestimated the condition of her property between December 2020 and February 2021 regarding its advice that a decant was not necessary. In final resolution to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to pay £1446 in compensation, representing the rent period from when the first leak was report until the second leak was identified.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for “keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises…”, which includes the roof, walls, floors and ceilings. It also states that it will “aim to carry out all repairs to the property which are [its] responsibility within a reasonable time”.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the priority level it gives to repairs. It defines “emergency repairs” as those that must be carried out immediately, e.g., severe flooding that cannot be contained…. It will aim to respond to these within two hours. It defines “urgent repairs” as those that must be carried out quickly to remove danger or health and safety risk. It says it will make the property safe, but the actual repair may be carried out at a later date. It will aim to attend these repairs within 24 hours. For “semi-planned repairs”, which it defines as larger non-urgent repairs to keep the property in a reasonable condition, it will aim to complete these within 60 working days.
  3. It appears that that the landlord resolved the initial leak and attend the resident’s home to make her ceiling safe in a prompt manner. It was unclear how the landlord categorised the repair the resident’s ceiling. This was undoubtedly delayed further due to the implications of the second leak, and time taken to ensure that the property has dried out following water ingress. The landlord has said that the celling was repaired in June 2021. Its repairs team reported that all works completed by 27 August 2021, though the nature and scope of the works following the ceiling repair was not clear from the evidence. It is therefore reasonable to assess that the situation was not fully rectified until August 2021, as this accords with the resident’s account that she vacated the property until this time and is when the rent freeze that was applied to her tenancy ended. Considering that the repair was resolved eight months after the initial leak was reported, and six months after the second leak was identified, the landlord clearly exceeded the maximum timeframe of any measure of a repair outlined in its policy to remedy the situation and exceeded what would be considered a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances.
  4. Nonetheless, overall, the landlord accepted responsibility for the delays in resolving the leaks, particularly the time taken to identify the second leak. It also acknowledged it should have taken more robust action to ensure there was no continued water ingress before booking in remedial plaster works. It light of this, it appropriately upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident in not being able to fully use some areas of her home, and for numerous contacts she made to chase repairs. It also explained that “these events took place during a time where social distancing measures were required, and the teams were operating with a sometimes-reduced workforce due to Covid-19 related absences”. This was a reasonable explanation, as the effect of Covid-19 and lockdown restrictions would have had an impact of the service delivery of the landlord, something which was reflected across the sector in regard to completing non-urgent repairs during periods of 2020 and 2021.
  5. There is no dispute that any repair work remains outstanding. The resident’s main dissatisfaction appears to regard the level of compensation offered by the landlord in its complaint responses, and the landlord’s assertion that a decant was not necessary in the circumstances, between the period between December 2021 and February 2022. She believed that if a decant was not necessary, then the landlord would not have made any offers of temporary accommodation at all, and thus believes the landlord should reimburse her rent or this period.
  6. However, this Service has not seen evidence that indicated the need for the resident to vacate the property following the initial leak and up until the second leak was identified. There is also no evidence that the property was considered unsafe or unsuitable to live in at that time. In internal correspondence regarding an inspection that was undertaken in February 2021, the repairs inspector reported “the property had not been flooded …The main bedroom top of the wall had some mould and there is an appointment booked …to treat the mould… However, it is not severe enough to affect her health and if the (dehumidifier) is used the situation should be fine.” Although it understood that the condition of the property would have considerably inconvenienced the resident, as she chose to leave the property and live with a relative of her own accord, it was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to reimburse her for rent for that period.
  7. It should be noted that tenants who are decanted on a temporary basis, would continue to be a tenant of their permanent home, and although they would not be expected to cover the costs for temporary accommodation, they would generally be obligated to continue paying the associated rent charges associated with their tenancy. Therefore, the landlord would not be obligated to reimburse residents for rent, nor apply a rent freeze to the resident’s tenancy for any periods that a temporary decant was in place.
  8. The landlord said it offered the resident temporary accommodation in March 2021 in light of the second leak discovered, as “due to the changing situation at the property, it was now not safe for her to return to the flat.” This was a reasonable action and explanation, given the second leak damaged the ceiling further (resulting in a section of it being pulled down), and considering that once the source of this leak was traced, the landlord was not able to rectify it for several weeks. It is therefore reasonable to assess the landlord made the offer of a temporary decant in light of the fact the second leak remained unremedied, in addition to the resident saying she was no longer able to stay at her mother’s property after the 14 March 2021.
  9. Whilst it is appreciated the resident was unhappy with the suitability of being offered a B&B with no cooking facilities, it is not an unusual offer in emergency situations, or where the landlord has minimal notice to source accommodation, as was the situation in this case. This Service has also not seen details of the accommodation offered so is not able to determine whether or not it was unreasonable. However, there is also no evidence that the property would have been uninhabitable once the repairs were completed, so it was reasonable that the landlord did not offer a permanent decant.
  10. It was unclear from the evidence why the resident remained out of the property until August 2021, for the entire duration of the repairs period following the second leak. Both parties agree that the resident was made a second offer of temporary accommodation following this, but this Service has not seen details of when the offer was made, or how long the offer was intended for. Landlord records indicate the resident refused this offer because it was not permanent, whereas the resident has said that she was advised by the landlord not to take this offer, out of financial concerns for her having to furnish an empty property. Comprehensive records are an essential part of a landlord’s service delivery and the lack of details within the landlord records is not appropriate and allows room for disagreement regarding the offer of accommodation made. Nonetheless, it is not disputed the resident continued living with her mother for the remainder of the repairs period, and the landlord provided a rent freeze as a gesture of good-will.
  11. It is also positive the landlord identified learning from the case and took further actions to try and ensure similar situations to do not recur. It acted appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, when it outlined the steps it had taken, and planned to take, in its complaint responses. Information seen by this Service indicates the landlord identified “service issues” when reviewing the case and held a meeting with contractors and tradespersons to remind them of the need to be thorough when investigating reported leaks. It noted this was a “work in progress” and its surveyors would be monitoring certain works going forward. It also reminded contractors to check the status of other works before booking in further repairs.
  12. Considering the service failings identified by the landlord, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation offered by the landlord for stress and inconvenience, in conjunction with its decision to use its discretion to offer a rent freeze from March 2021 until August 2021 (totalling £2815.90), amounts to an offer of reasonable redress in the circumstances, above what the Ombudsman would expect to see in similar cases. It is also noted that the resident, in correspondence with the landlord, requested a sum of £1446 to cover the three-month period between December 2020 and February 2021. While the landlord declined to offer compensation for this period, its offer to cover the resident’s rent between March and August 2021 was ultimately more generous.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress regarding its handling of repairs to the resident’s property following damage caused by leaks from the property above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reiterate its offer of £250 to the resident (within four weeks of this report) if it has not already done so.