London Borough of Brent (202214126)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214126

Brent Council

3 March 2023

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:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak into her property and subsequent internal damage.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block comprised of similar properties.
3. The resident initially reported issues with damp in her property between December 2019 and January 2020 (the exact date is unclear from the records). A contractor subsequently inspected the property on 25 February 2020 and found that the bricks had become porous, and during periods of heavy rain, moisture would percolate into the property. The resident was advised that the roof would also be checked. Further inspections confirmed that there were no defects with the external brickwork. On 2 December 2020, the landlord advised the resident that the issues were caused by condensation, rather than the roof or the pointing of the building, which would typically be the resident’s responsibility. Due to the length of time the issue had been ongoing, and as it had not updated the resident, the landlord agreed to commission a damp survey, which was subsequently completed on 8 January 2021. The resident chased the landlord for the damp survey report and an inspection for the roof.
4. On 5 March 2021, the landlord outlined the actions it planned to take, including capping the parapet wall, a CCTV survey of the roof drainage, adding drips to the heads of the resident’s windows and appointing a consultant to thoroughly investigate. The contractors erected scaffolding on 22 March 2021, and the landlord advised the resident on 19 May 2021 that works to the parapet above her property had been completed, but works to the rest of the block were ongoing. On 21 May 2021, the landlord advised the resident to allow time for the walls to dry out, before it would consider internal remedial works. The resident chased updates on several occasions regarding the remedial works and on 17 November 2021 she said water was entering the flat through new areas.
5. On 13 January 2022, the resident raised a complaint about the water leaking from the roof, which had caused significant damage to her property. She said she had complained several times to the landlord since her initial report, and the issue remained unresolved. In her complaint escalation, the resident asked for copies of the investigations as she had not received updates. She said she had to redecorate three rooms due to the damage caused by the water ingress and she wanted compensation. She also stated her daughter’s room was uninhabitable, and she had moved in with her grandparent as a result of this. She also said the ongoing issues had impacted her mental health.
6. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint on 21 June 2022, it apologised for the amount of time the issue had been ongoing for. It said the investigation into the leaks had been complex and required a specialist contractor to survey 24 properties, which caused unavoidable delays. The investigation found there was water ingress through the brickwork during sustained periods of rain. It outlined the options to resolve the issue and advised the consultant would provide a plan to resolve the issue in full. An appointment was scheduled for 21 June 2022, and it would complete a post-inspection to ensure the works were completed to the expected standard. It offered £150 compensation for the delays in communication and the inconvenience caused to the resident.
7. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs, which had caused a leak and damp and mould. She said the landlord had not provided her with clear information regarding what had caused the issue or confirmation of whether external works had been completed. She wanted the landlord to complete the internal and external repairs to the property and offer compensation for the delays.
8. Following completion of the complaints process, the landlord has advised a contractor attended on 5 January 2023 and identified additional works to the roof parapet walls, which were due to be completed on 6 February 2023. It also stated that the major roof repairs were referred to the initial contractor as the roof was under warranty. It said it would reimburse the resident the cost of any internal works and offer compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings 

9. The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for repairing and maintaining “foundations, outside walls, roofs, outside doors and window frames”. As the resident is a leaseholder, she is responsible for internal repairs, however, the landlord should ensure that external, structural issues are not contributing to damp and mould. As a result, when the resident reported damp and mould in her property due to a leak from the roof, the landlord was obliged to investigate the issue and complete any identified repairs that were its responsibility.
10. In this case, it is important to note that the contemporaneous records provided to this Service by the landlord were not comprehensive. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The Ombudsman’s investigations are based on evidence provided by the landlord and resident and in the absence of clear evidence from the landlord, we may not be able to determine whether the landlord has taken sufficient steps to fulfil its repair obligations. This investigation is therefore based on the available evidence. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping processes to ensure that it keeps clear records of all its inspections and repair works.
11. It is not disputed that there were failings by the landlord in its handling of the leak as in its stage two complaint response it acknowledged there had been delays and poor communication, for which it offered £150 compensation. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses 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.
12. Following the resident’s first report of damp and mould in the property, the landlord initially responded appropriately as an inspection was completed on 25 February 2020, which identified the external walls were cold and during heavy periods of rainwater would percolate through the walls as they had become porous. There were subsequently long periods of inaction by the landlord, and there was a lack of updates provided to the resident which led to additional time and effort in her pursuing the issue. It took almost a year for the landlord to confirm that it had found no roof defects, or signs of damp penetration, and the required works were the resident’s responsibility. The landlord’s conclusion seems contradictory to the report, as water ingress due to porous brickwork would be the landlord’s responsibility to resolve as it is a structural issue. Although condensation may have contributed to the issue, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not assess any other repairs to the structure of the building at this stage, and such repairs were later deemed to be necessary.
13. In view of the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s reports of damp, and the significant delays, it was reasonable that the landlord said it would commission a damp specialist. A damp survey subsequently took place on 8 January 2021, but the landlord failed to provide the findings to the resident or this Service, despite explicit requests. It is therefore unclear what recommendations were made, or whether the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations. A damp inspection is a vital piece of evidence that this Service would expect the landlord to be able to provide and it is of concern that the landlord noted in an internal email on 30 November 2022 that it had no damp and mould inspection for the resident’s property on its system.
14. The landlord advised the resident on 2 December 2020 that it would inspect the roof and subsequently on 8 December 2020 the contractor identified that 28 metres of coping stones needed to be renewed. However, the works were delayed as the landlord identified that the leak was impacting numerous properties, so it carried out further investigations. If repairs are required on a wider scale to the whole building, it can be reasonable for the landlord to complete the repairs together as it can lead to less disruption to residents and reduce financial costs which would ultimately be passed on to residents through their service charges. However, in this case, as the issues had been ongoing for a significant length of time with minimal progress, it was unreasonable for the landlord to further delay the works to resolve the leak to the resident’s property. The landlord advised this Service that the coping stones were installed on 21 June 2022, which was a significant delay in completing the work. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord advised the resident of any reasons for the delay or managed her expectations regarding the timeframe.
15. On 30 January 2021 and 8 February 2021, the resident reported that water was coming through the roof. The landlord responded appropriately as it completed an inspection on 18 February 2021 and contractors erected scaffolding for works to commence on the roof on 22 March 2021. On 29 April 2021, the landlord advised the resident it had confirmed the roof was not leaking and parapet works would help with roof penetration. On 21 May 2021, the landlord told the resident to wait a month for the property to dry out, and while this was an appropriate suggestion as the property would have to dry before internal remedial works commenced, the landlord should have promptly followed up to advise the resident of the next actions to be taken. Despite the resident chasing updates, there is no evidence that the landlord provided any meaningful information to the resident, other than advising her on 28 June 2021 that it would inform her on the remedial works when it had received a full report from its contractors, which there is no evidence it subsequently did. On 17 November 2021, the resident advised water was entering the property in new areas. The landlord’s failure to take accountability for the repair led to additional significant delays in resolving the leak and the damp and mould.
16. The resident raised her complaint on 13 January 2022 as the leak was ongoing and was causing damage to her property. On 31 January 2022, the landlord updated the resident on the progress of the works through its service request response. It advised that consultants had been inspecting the building over the last quarter (it is unclear exactly when the investigation commenced), including accessing the majority of the 24 flats in the building. It is recognised that a widespread investigation would be a lengthy process, particularly as the landlord experienced issues with gaining access to some of the flats. However, this Service would expect to see evidence that the landlord had provided the resident with regular updates, which it failed to do. Furthermore, given that the resident had initially reported issues with damp and mould in 2020, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation at an earlier date so that it could progress with the repairs.
17. The inspection concluded that to resolve the ongoing issues, the repairs would include substantial “brick and pointing and re-rendering works” or an “EWI system that will address both the water ingress issue and the cold bridging problem caused by the solid wall construction of this building”. A repair report on 16 March 2022 stated that the contractor had filled cracks and holes above the parapet of the wall and above the window. However, in an internal email on 7 November 2022 the landlord stated it had calculated the costs for the EWI system, “but no instruction was ever given”, indicating that the works remain outstanding. As a result, although some works have been completed, the landlord has failed to fulfil its repair obligations, as it has not completed all identified repairs to resolve the issue in full or provided appropriate reasons for its decisions not to complete such repairs.
18. Following the completion of the complaints process, the landlord advised this Service that additional repairs were identified, including further works to the parapet walls and rendering to the internal face of the walls, which were scheduled to commence on 6 February 2023 and expected to take two weeks to complete. The landlord also stated that the major works to the roof were cancelled, as it had identified they were still covered under the warranty. Regardless of the warranty, the landlord is responsible for ensuring the works were completed, and the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord had pursued the issue with the relevant contractors. It stated that it recalled the works with the original contractors on 24 November 2022, but there is no evidence of any further correspondence, or that the work had been completed.
19. Although it is recognised that the landlord has taken steps to progress the repairs since the completion of the complaints progress, there is not satisfactory evidence to confirm that the repairs have been completed in full. The landlord is therefore ordered to complete a full case review to assess its handling of the repairs. It should also carry out an inspection to identify all points of water ingress in the building, as well as a further damp inspection of the resident’s property, and complete any required remedial works.
20. The landlord has advised this Service that once the required works are completed, it will reimburse the resident for the cost of any internal repairs to the property. Although the resident would usually be responsible for internal repairs to the property, as the damage was caused by external repair issues, which the landlord has not handled appropriately, it was reasonable that the landlord has agreed to compensate the cost of the repairs. In her complaint, the resident had also raised that she had to redecorate three rooms due to the damage, which the landlord has not acknowledged. The landlord should contact the resident and compensate for any costs she would not have reasonably incurred if the landlord had handled the repairs appropriately.
21. It is acknowledged that leaks and subsequent damp and mould can take more than one inspection or repair attempt to resolve as there can be several potential causes. It is also recognised that in this case, the inspections were more time consuming as the landlord had to access numerous properties in order to carry out inspections. In addition, the landlord advised that it experienced delays due to the impact of COVID-19, which was an appropriate reason for the delays to some extent, as the landlord had to ensure it adhered to government guidelines for social distancing, which was outside of its control. It also seems that the leak may have been intermittent, as the records show it was more prevalent during periods of heavy rainfall, which can also cause delays in identifying the cause. However, in this case, the delays have been excessive as the issue has been ongoing for over three years. The landlord has instructed multiple inspections to be completed, often reaching the same findings, but has failed to implement a clear resolution. There were also often significant delays or a complete omission to carry out repairs that had been identified within contractors’ reports.
22. Overall, there has been a distinct lack of progress in the repairs and the landlord has failed to complete the identified repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated or make meaningful attempts to reduce the impact of the issues. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to its failings and the impact on the resident. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged some of its failings but failed to account for the detriment to the resident. In this case, the landlord offered £150 to the resident due to its communication failings but did not acknowledge its failings to progress the repair. As a result, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £400 compensation, bringing the total compensation to £550, including the landlord’s earlier offer.

Complaint handling

23. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, it should respond to stage one complaints within 20 working days and stage two complaints within 30 working days. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. In accordance with the Code, landlords should issue stage one complaint responses within ten working days and stage two responses within 20 working days. The landlord should therefore review its complaint handling policy, to ensure that it brings it in line with the Code, to ensure that its complaints process is not unduly long.
24. On 13 January 2022, the resident raised a complaint regarding the leak from the roof. The landlord issued a service request response on 31 January 2022. This was inappropriate as the Complaint Handling Code states that “Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. A service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests should be recorded, monitored and reviewed regularly. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request”. In this case, the resident explicitly stated that she wanted to raise a complaint, so the landlord should have handled it as such.
25. The landlord did not explain how the resident could escalate her complaint in its initial response, which may have caused delays in her escalating to stage two of the landlord’s process. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 9 May 2022 and the landlord issued its stage two response on 21 June 2022, which was in line with its response timeframe. However, she had expressed that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s earlier response on 7 April 2022, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate her complaint at this stage, rather than waiting for her to make an explicit request. The landlord’s actions led to a delay in completing the complaints process, causing inconvenience for the resident.
26. The landlord’s final response was not a comprehensive account of events or the landlord’s actions and did not demonstrate that the landlord had considered the full period of time the repair issues had been ongoing. In accordance with the Code “where the problem is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue for the resident.” The landlord’s response focused on the most recent inspections and did not consider earlier actions, which was inappropriate given that the resident had initially reported the repair issues in 2020, and she had explicitly stated in her complaint that she was dissatisfied the issue had been ongoing for over two years. As a result, the landlord failed to consider the full impact on the resident due to the extended period of time the repair issues had been outstanding.
27. The Complaint Handling Code also states the landlord is expected to address all points raised by the resident in a complaint and provide clear reasons for its decisions. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that her daughter’s room was uninhabitable, and that she had moved out of the property as a result. There is also no evidence that the landlord had assessed whether the room was habitable, as a result, there may have been a missed opportunity to complete an inspection. Similarly, the landlord also failed to assess the resident’s reports that she had to redecorate three rooms due to the damage caused by the leak. As a result, the landlord has failed to address the complaint in full, meaning these issues remain outstanding.
28. There were several failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, which it has failed to acknowledge. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failing or made an attempt to put things right. In this case, the landlord’s complaint handling failures meant there were delays in resolving the complaint and the complaint was not considered or addressed in full. This has caused increased inconvenience, time and effort to the resident in pursuing the complaint and the associated repairs. As a result, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation. The landlord should also contact the resident to discuss her outstanding concerns regarding the condition of her daughter’s room and redecoration.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of a leak into their property and subsequent internal damage
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. As a result of the failings identified in this report, within four weeks the landlord should pay the resident:
    1. £550 for its failures in handling the resident’s reports of a leak into her property and subsequent internal damage (inclusive of £150 offered in its stage two complaint response).
    2. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
    3. Compensation for any internal repairs required due to damage caused by the leak.
32. Within six weeks, the landlord is ordered to carry out a full inspection to the building to identify all points of water ingress, as well as a further damp inspection to the resident’s property, and complete any required remedial works.
33. The landlord should complete a full case review within four weeks to identify points of learning and assess how its repair service can be improved.
34. Within four weeks, the landlord should contact the resident to discuss her outstanding concerns regarding the condition of her daughter’s room and redecoration.
35. The landlord should provide proof that it has complied to these orders to this Service within the relevant timeframes.

Recommendations

36. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices to ensure that it keeps clear records of all its inspections and repair works.
37. The landlord should review its staff training requirements regarding its complaint handling policy to ensure that complaints are raised and escalated where appropriate.
38. The landlord should review its complaint handling policy to bring its response timeframes in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.