London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201915332)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915332

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

12 August 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.

Our approach

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
2. Handling of the subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a leaseholder of a flat on the second floor of a block since July 2016.
The resident says she initially raised the issue of damp problems being caused by a roof leak in January 2017. The landlord has received multiple reports of problems with the roof from the resident and other residents within the block. In the period from 2015-2019, repair records show there were at least four reports of damage to walls and communal areas following wet and windy weather.
Due to the continuing and repeated problems, the resident made a request for a description of all works to the roof since 2012 and these were later summarised by the landlord as:
1. 2015 Flash band and coating.
2. 2016 Following storm damage refix flashing and slates.
3. 2017 Refix flashing supply water proofer and install vent caps and flash band
4. 2018 Applies coating remove and refixed slates
Following a further report of a roof leak causing damage to a communal area, the landlord attended to carry out repair work in January 2019 and again on 25 May 2019. This work was described as “renewal of the table top flat roof and dormer top in felt and renewal of leadwork to the chimney stack on the roof.”
The resident reported that the roof leak had re-occurred on 15 October 2019. The resident said that her interior walls were being damaged by the roof leak. The resident said it had been a short period of time since the landlord had attended to fix the roof leak and the repair must have been below standard for it recur again so soon. The landlord acknowledged that pictures provided by the resident showed the area was “heavily soaked from water ingress.” The resident was concerned that as a leaseholder, she was expected to contribute towards repair works and she had lost faith in the roofing contractor being used by the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident via email on 21 October 2019 saying that contractors would be in touch with the resident once a date was available.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2019 saying that she had not heard anything and the damp was ruining paintwork and affecting her young child. The issue was logged as a formal complaint.
No progress was made on the roof repair from October 2019 for several months. The leak caused damp and mould to appear and damage to internal walls. These problems worsened when there was bad weather rather than being a continuous uncontrolled flow of water.
By January 2020, the landlord had established that due to the cost of the roof repair, which was estimated at over £3,000 due to the scaffolding required, it would be necessary to issue a Section 20 notice and the landlord told the resident this would extend the timescale of the roof repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 January 2020 saying that “This is the 4th time repair work will have been requested so I’ve run out of patience. No compensation or even an apology has been received, just an expectation that we as leaseholders pay for yet more work. Each time I’ve had to wait for the section 20 and it’s just not fair given the damage to my property and costs I have to incur. Please advise who I can escalate this to?”
On 6 February 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and said that an operative had sent “a reminder email to our section 20 team, stating that they need to act immediately as the roof leak is ongoing and not resolved yet. I am aware this is very stressful for you; however, I am chasing this as much as I can so that this can be resolved very swiftly. As part of the homeowner and involving the section 20 team, a request for quotes from our team (repairs) must be submitted to Section 20 team, before approving works.”
In order to proceed with the Section 20 notice, it was necessary for the landlord to obtain at least two quotations for the roof work. The landlord experienced difficulty with this but no evidence has been provided to explain why this was the case. A roofer attended on 4 March 2020 and acknowledged that major work was required to the roof. Strict Coronavirus restrictions then began and this delayed the process further since only emergency repair work was being carried out.
At the end of the lockdown period in July 2020, the landlord was aware that the resident remained dissatisfied and had approached this service for assistance. However, no formal escalation of the complaint took place. No substantial progress was made in advancing the section 20 process. This process involved getting at least two quotes, and then getting authorisation from an internal surveyor to go ahead with the Section 20 notice. Once the notice period had elapsed and residents had been given reasonable time to make observations and comments on the works, they could be carried out.
On 7 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again making her reasons for dissatisfaction clear. These were described as:
1. “the amount of time the process takes each time I raise a complaint that the work has not resolved the issue;
2. the lack of resolution over a 4 year period;
3. the lack of regard for the damage to my walls and inability to use my second room as a bedroom for my soon due to damp and mould;
4. the lack of correspondence (especially around appointments); and
5. the poor workmanship by the contractors (the landlord) send.”
On 20 Nov 2020, the landlord contacted the resident advising that “quotes should be obtained and passed by first week in December to S 20 team.”
The resident chased progress during January 2021 as she said she had heard nothing about the Section 20 process.
On 3 March 2021, the Section 20 ‘notice of intention to carry out works’ was sent to the resident and other occupants in the block. The consultation period was due to end on 7 April 2021. The work was described as ‘renewal of flat roof and lead work to main roof’ including re-felt and new flashing to be fitted to the main roof, new slates fitted to the main roof, cleaning and clearing of the gutters and downpipes. The resident was advised she could obtain a quotation from a provider of her choice for consideration by the landlord during this time.
On 24 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord giving details of her previous contacts and complaints about the roof repair. The resident said that she had approached her MP due to her frustration with her landlord and the lack of progress being made. The resident also said that she refused to pay any further charges until various matters were resolved including a problem with Japanese knotweed in a neighbours garden. The resident also expressed concern that one of the quotations for the roof work had been provided by someone ‘driving by’ and it was necessary to inspect her flat from the inside to see what needed to be done to the roof.
In a response to the MP dated 24 March 2021, the landlord said that an “outstanding roof repair was required and may be contributing to the damp and mould” but it was in the process of a Section 20 consultation needed before the works could commence. The resident has confirmed that the issue with Japanese knotweed was resolved after some delay.
On 14 April 2021, in a further response to the MP, the landlord acknowledged that “we have not always been great at updating resident on roof” and apologised for this. The landlord also said it was not responsible for internal damage from leaks under the terms of the lease and the resident would need to make an insurance claim if her home had been damaged.
On 28 April 2021, the resident again chased the landlord for an update on the roof works. On 17 May 2021, the resident reported a new leak occurring in her bathroom and that she wished to make a complaint. The landlord attended on 19 May 2021 to carry out a temporary repair to the bathroom leak.
On the 18 May 2021, the landlord contacted the resident by phone and confirmed that a stage 2 complaint was now underway. The landlord acknowledged that it had ‘let down’ the resident and said that it would investigate further to try and provide a resolution. Internal correspondence suggests that the landlord may still have been struggling to get a second quotation for the works despite having issued the notice of intention to carry out works on 3 March 2021.
On the 3 June 2021, the resident requested an update saying that two people had been to look at the roof recently. The landlord sent an update the same day and explained the limits imposed by the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord said that the policy suggested payments of between £20-60 for distress and inconvenience. The landlord said the same policy suggested payments of up to £200 for residents having to chase responses to complaints. The landlord suggested that a payment of £320 may be appropriate given the particular circumstances of the case but this would be given further consideration.
Internal discussions took place regarding the appropriate amount of compensation to be paid to the resident before the stage two response was issued. A senior manager confirmed that the landlord’s position should be that the “the resident should not be charged twice for re-occurring issues that may have been done badly in the first place. If she has been charged twice a refund should be given.” It was also discussed that charging the resident for a third time for the forthcoming works would be unfair.
A stage two final complaints response was issued on 17 June 2021. The landlord acknowledged that
1. Details from the stage one complaint confirmed that no effective resolution was delivered to the complaint made on 28 October 2019.
2. There was significant delay in the order being raised for the second quotation which the landlord said was not done until 18 May 2020. (although there is evidence that the actual date was 18 May 2021)
3. Two quotations had now been obtained and the Section 20 team would be in touch with the resident regarding commencement of the works.
4. The landlord offered reimbursement for ineffective roof work done in January 2019. The reimbursement was calculated as one third of the total cost (£510) which was £170. This was to be credited to the resident’s service charge account.
5. The landlord acknowledged that it could have considered complaint escalation at a far earlier stage and a further award of £150 was agreed in addition to the £320 previously suggested.
6. The total compensation payment offered by the landlord was £470 plus a reimbursement of £170.
7. The landlord’s complaints policy had been reviewed in October 2020 and it now escalated complaints in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code.
8. The Section 20 team had been asked to contact the resident directly and confirm what the next steps were for both the Section 20 process and the time scales involved.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2021 saying that the compensation offered was not sufficient since her contribution to roof work costs had been approximately £1000, higher than was stated in the stage two response. The resident said that her stage two complaint should not have been closed as the matter remained unresolved.
The resident was advised by the landlord to contact this service if she remained dissatisfied with the final stage complaints response.
The resident has recently advised this service that she has received no contact from the Section 20 team regarding roof work since June 2021 when the internal complaints process was completed and says no roof repair work has taken place since then.
The resident has also stated that further roof damage occurred earlier this year during severe weather in January 2022 and the landlord has not responded to requests for roof repairs since then. The resident says her internal walls have been damaged further as a result.

Assessment and findings

Roof Repair

The focus of this investigation is on the complaint made by the resident about the roof leak in October 2019 and the landlord’s response to it which was sent in June 2021. By the time the final stage response was sent, it is acknowledged by the landlord that the roof work had still not been carried out and no evidence has been provided to show that it has been completed since then.
The landlord’s repair obligations are described in the lease document provided to this service. The lease says in schedule 6 paragraph 1 that the landlord will “keep in repair (and whenever reasonably necessary rebuild and reinstate) the Reserved Property and the external walls of the building.” This includes repairs and renewal of the roof.
The landlord’s repair service standards state that “we want to provide residents with a reliable, modern and effective repairs service that undertakes repairs for which we have a responsibility to a good standard in a reasonable timeframe.” The same repairs policy suggests that follow on repairs are to be done at the ‘earliest mutually convenient appointment.’
It is accepted that there is a legal necessity under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for notice to be issued by the landlord prior to the roof works being carried out. This legislation is intended to protect leaseholders from paying unnecessarily large sums for work carried out to their building and it is accepted that it was reasonable for the landlord to apply this procedure given the expected costs of the roof repair which exceeded £250 for each leaseholder.
It is not disputed by the landlord that there was ‘significant delay’ in carrying out roof work. The total delay experienced by the resident from the time of her complaint at the end of October 2019 until August 2022 is approximately 33 months. Allowing a period of four months for the Section 20 notice and consultation (which is the time period recommended in the landlords Section 20 policy and guidance) as well as five months for unavoidable delay during Coronavirus lockdown, the total avoidable delay experienced by the resident from the time of her complaint until the time of this determination is therefore 24 months.
The landlord failed to comply with its repair obligations as set out in the lease agreement. The delay on the roof work is a significant service failure which failed to meet the service standards of the landlord. The landlord recognised that this needed to be put right.
The landlord has offered a total of £470 compensation as well as a reimbursement to the resident of £170. The landlord said in discussions with the resident that their compensation policy indicated a cap on compensation for ‘chasing complaints’ of £200. The landlord correctly realised in this case this amount would not be sufficient and it was reasonable and resolution focussed that the landlord used its discretion to award additional compensation of £150. This payment of £350, together with an additional £120 for distress and inconvenience was how the figure of £470 was reached.
Taken as a whole, £470 equates to approximately £18 for each month of avoidable delay the resident experienced. During this time, the resident not only had to repeatedly chase up a response to her complaint but also experienced limited used of one of her rooms, inconvenience to her and her young child, damp and mould problems as evidenced by photographs sent in. This is a significant impact on the resident and therefore a payment of £30 for each of these avoidable months of delay instead of £18 would be more appropriate. This represents a revised figure of £720 in recognition of delays carrying out the roof work.
Although the landlord has previously stated that it does not have responsibility for carrying out internal repairs in the residents property, it is appropriate to do so in this case given the landlords failure to meet the repair obligations set out in the lease. A further order has therefore been made below regarding redecoration.

Complaints Handling

The landlord has recognised that its complaints handling was unsatisfactory in this case. The landlord has acknowledged that it should have escalated the complaint to stage two far earlier. There is evidence that this would have assisted the resident as it was only after the complaint went to stage two that the roadblock of obtaining the second quotation for the roof works was overcome.
Furthermore, the landlord has not acknowledged that it did not provide a formal stage one response with clear escalation information. The stage one response was a series of email exchanges which apologised and tried to explain what was happening without effectively progressing the issue. The co-ordination between the responsive repairs team, the complaints team and the Section 20 team was therefore lacking and a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to consider how to improve this as learning from the complaint.
There was a long delay from the time the complaint was received in October 2019 to the time when a meaningful formal response was sent to the resident. This period was over one year and was unacceptable.
In recognition of the failures in complaints handling, in addition to the £720 compensation proposed above for delays in carrying out the roof repair, an additional £150 should be offered to the resident.
This brings the total compensation to be offered to the resident to £870.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54d of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
In accordance with paragraph 54d of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaint.

Reasons

There was unreasonable delay in obtaining the second quotation needed for the Section 20 to proceed. There was unreasonable delay in escalating the residents complaint. No evidence has been seen that the landlord has carried out the necessary roof repairs to date or communicated with the resident about the roof works since the final stage complaints response.

Orders

It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident a total of £870 compensation minus any compensation already paid within four weeks.
It is ordered that the landlord contact the resident and this service within four weeks with a progress update on the works including clear timescales and dates for any consultation period. The landlord must open a new complaint if these timescales are not met.
It is ordered that the landlord put right damage to the resident’s property either by carrying out works at no cost to the resident, reimbursing the resident for their costs (should they wish to arrange to have them completed themselves) or by facilitating a claim on its own liability insurance. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this service within four weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews the joint working between its responsive repairs team, complaints team and Section 20 team to ensure its procedures and working practices are fit for purpose.