Stroud District Council (202115464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115464

Stroud District Council

22 December 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. This complaint is about the resident’s reports of the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Replacement of the shed roof.
   2. The resident’s roof and chimney repair.
   3. The resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of an operative.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a house.
3. The resident had previous reports of a leak in 2018 and 2019, which were looked into by the landlord at the time and recorded as being closed.
4. On 11 March 2021 the resident informed the landlord of a possible roof leak into the bedroom, she also informed them the shed roof was leaking. Following this the landlord arranged for a surveyor to visit the property. It was noted that within the property, the Artex needed to be removed, the ceiling needed to be skimmed and painted following the leak, the external walls also needed to be painted. The landlord proceeded to pass this on to its planned repairs team.
5. On 25 May 2021 the landlord had arranged for an operative to attend the property in order to carry out repairs to the Artex, however they stated the resident had refused the works as the roof had not been repaired.
6. On 28 May 2021 the resident proceeded to raise a complaint about outstanding repairs. These were for the following:
   1. Work outstanding to the ceiling following a leak from the boiler.
   2. The chimney roof had leaked into 2 bedrooms.
   3. Operatives carried out works without face coverings.
7. Following this, on 7 June 2021, the landlord visited the resident’s property to inspect the water damage to the ceilings and chimney breast wall, and underneath the window. The landlord also looked at the roof to the shed. It is stated that the resident had told the landlord that this had been inspected already and recommended removal.
8. On 23 June 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response.  The landlord explained that it had reviewed its housing management system and found there was an outstanding work order for repairs to the kitchen ceiling and works for the shed door. The landlord explained that it had asked its planned maintenance team to include renewal of the shed roof with the external works which were planned to be carried out that year. It explained this would also include any works required to the chimney and roof of the house. The landlord stated it had booked in work to the kitchen ceiling, bedroom and living room, this was confirmed to commence on 15 July 2021. In recognition of the time taken to book work in, the landlord said, as a gesture of good will, it would be issuing the resident decoration vouchers worth around £147.
9. In response to the resident’s claims that an operative attended the property without a face covering, the landlord explained that all operatives should wear face coverings when attending properties. It apologised to the resident for the inconvenience and explained that it had arranged a talk to remind all its operatives of the importance of wearing face coverings whilst working in homes.
10. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 19 July 2022, she stated that the works on the shed roof, containing asbestos had not been carried out. She also explained that paint cannot be applied to walls until her chimney damage is fixed. The resident expressed that she had spoken about monetary compensation due to the original complaint being made in 2019, she expressed that she was seeking further compensation, as she did not feel the vouchers offered were enough.
11. On 21 July 2021, the landlord passed the roof works including the shed roof replacement on to the planned team as part of its external works programme.
12. Subsequently the landlord issued its stage two response on 12 August 2021. The landlord explained that the works to the shed had been included on the cyclical programme and it had requested a further investigation of the chimney.
13. The landlord explained that where moisture penetration is intermittent, it may be difficult to detect an immediate source of ingress requiring officers to undertake a process of elimination.
14. The landlord stated that during a previous historic visit, there was staining in a number of areas. It noted stains in bedrooms being associated with a roof repair which was done in April 2019. The landlord stated that following the resident’s recent concerns, it was requested that the staining be treated, and an operative attended the property on 15 July 2021, however the resident had refused access and the work was not undertaken.
15. The shed roof had been replaced during summer 2021.
16. As the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, the complaint was brought to this service. On 25 October 2021, the resident stated she was unhappy with the following:
    1. The landlord had stated there was no issue with the roof and chimney, however the resident disputed this.
    2. The landlord had stated it could not begin redecoration of the shed until the chimney was repaired. But the resident said the chimney is nowhere near the shed.
    3. The landlord renewed the shed roofs, but it did not seal them which led to further leaks. The resident stated the landlord had inspected this, but no repair had taken place.
    4. The resident was also unhappy with the landlord compensation of decorating vouchers worth £147.85.
    5. The resident expressed she did not feel the chimney was repaired in a timely manner as this had first been reported in 2019. The resident also expressed the shed roof had a survey that took place a while ago.
17. As a remedy the resident was seeking the following:
    1. The landlord to carry out repairs to the chimney, shed roof, and external decorations to shed doors and back door.
    2. The landlord to pay compensation.
18. During November 2021 the landlord had arranged for scaffolding to be erected, following inspection the contractors found there was no sign of damage causing water ingress into the property.

Assessment and findings

19. This service notes the resident had explained she was seeking compensation due to her original complaint being made in 2019. This service has noted this as context, however, will not look back into historic issues reported. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. This service has considered the recent incident of reported repairs in 2021 which are relevant to the landlord’s formal responses. This service has looked at the landlord’s actions when the resident reported issues, and whether it acted in accordance to its policies and procedures.

Replacement of the shed roof.

20. The evidence shows the landlord visited the resident on 7 June 2021 to inspect the shed, to which the resident explained the surveyor had already inspected it and recommended a removal. Following this the evidence shows that, on 8 June 2021, the landlord had looked into whether the works could be undertaken along with the planned works which were due to commence.
21. The evidence shows the landlord had passed roof works on to its planned team as part of the planned works programme, which was to include the shed roof replacement. This resulted in the shed roof being replaced in summer 2021.
22. The landlord’s policies do not state what its procedures are for cyclical maintenance. However, in these types of circumstances the timescales for these repairs will vary and it is considered reasonable for the landlord to consider the repairs under its planned maintenance programme.
23. This service notes the resident had expressed a view that the replacement of the shed roof was done to a poor standard. However, as these new concerns were raised after the landlord’s stage two response, this service is unable to consider this in the scope of this investigation. The resident would need to allow the landlord a chance to investigate the matter and exhaust its complaints procedure in the first instance.
24. With that being said, this service will be recommending the landlord address the resident’s concerns regarding further issues with the shed.

The resident’s roof and chimney repair.

25. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out repair obligations for landlords. It states, ‘In a lease to which this section applies (as to which, see sections 13 and 14) there is implied a covenant by the lessor to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house.” This is also stipulated in section 3 of the tenancy agreement. Therefore, when the resident reported concerns of leaks and repairs to the roof, the landlord was responsible for making a repair.
26. This service has reviewed the landlord’s timeline of reported repairs concerning the leak and can see that the resident had reported issues during 2018 and 2019 which the landlord had attended to. This is noted as context as the Ombudsman notes that the leaks appear to have been a recurring issue, and the resident’s concerns were understandable particularly within this context.
27. The evidence shows that, on 11 March 2021, the resident had reported a possible leak running down the bedroom wall, which the landlord had arranged for a surveyor to attend to on 18 March 2021. The surveyor had reported that the Artex needed to be removed and skimmed and paint work would be required following the leaks. Following this, the landlord had arranged for an operative to attend to carry out repairs to the Artex on 25 May 2021, however this was refused by the resident as she did not feel the leak to the chimney had been addressed.
28. The evidence shows that following this, on 7 June 2021 the landlord had attended to inspect the damage to the ceilings, chimney breast wall, and water damage underneath the window in the living room. As a resolution, the landlord had asked for the chimney to be checked as part of the repairs programme due to take place that year. It had also booked in works to commence on 15 July 2021. However, the evidence shows that when an operative attended that day to carry out stain blocking, so decorations could be undertaken, access was refused by the resident, as she did not want redecoration works to commence until the chimney issue had been resolved.
29. This service has reviewed the available information to decide whether the landlord had taken the appropriate actions following the resident’s reports and its inspections during March and June 2021.
30. This service recognises the landlord had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 18 March 2021 to check for a possible leak, however we have not seen reports from this visit to suggest if the landlord had appropriately addressed the concerns regarding the possible leak and satisfied itself that the issue causing the leak had been resolved. This was not appropriate, particularly given that the landlord would have been aware of the earlier history of leaks at the property. Despite this, this service has also not seen evidence to suggest that further leaks had been reported after this date.
31. Whilst this service recognises the landlord had made attempts to address the resident’s concerns, this service understands the resident’s reason for refusing redecoration of the property until the potential leak issue had been addressed. This is because if the leak was not adequately addressed it could lead to further issues and inconveniences for the resident in future. In such circumstances this service would expect the landlord to address the cause of the leak first and then subsequently any damage. However, the Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence to suggest this had been done. This service has not seen evidence to suggest the landlord had rectified the potential cause of the leak.
32. Whilst this service recognises the landlord was attempting to undertake internal decorative works, the Ombudsman does not find that it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for redecoration prior to the chimney being checked further following the resident’s concerns. If it considered that no further checks were needed, this should have been clearly explained to the resident, however there is no evidence that this happened.
33. The evidence shows that following the roofers visit during its planned maintenance, it reported that there was no main cause of water ingress into the property. However, it did find there were a couple of weak points that may have caused the point of ingress. It had noted a couple of broken tiles behind the chimney, and a weak point on the corner within the lead apron which may cause back flow wind driven rain. It had also found that several tiles to the front of the chimney were sitting flat and rising slightly. It was noted that the roof would need replacing in the near future. Following this, the landlord stated it was on the years 2021/22 roof replacement programme however no date had been confirmed.
34. This service understands the resident was upset with the length of time it had taken the landlord to attend to the chimney. Therefore, we have considered if the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
35. In its stage two response dated 12 August 2021, the landlord had explained that the chimney had been included on the cyclical programme.
36. Whilst this service understands the resident expressed, she did not feel the chimney was repaired in a timely manner as this had first been reported in 2019, the evidence shows in 2019 the landlord had attended to the resident’s reports of a leak. This Service has only considered the events from the resident’s re-reported issues during 2021.
37. Since the report of a possible leak in March 2021, this service had not seen evidence to suggest that any further leaks occurred after this time within the property. Given the evidence available, it was reasonable for the landlord to include the work on its cyclical programme.
38. This service understands that, in recognition of the time that it took the landlord to book the works, it considered its compensation policy. The landlord explained that its financial compensation was fixed by the right to repair scheme at an initial sum of £10, plus £2 for every day thereafter that a repair is not completed, up to a maximum of £50. In an effort to compensate the resident it issued decoration vouchers worth around £147, which would provide the resident with enough tools and paint to decorate her home after it completed the required works.
39. The landlord’s compensation policy states, ‘it may, at its discretion, issue compensation to tenants as a result of decorations, furniture or personal items being damaged due to neglect by a member of staff or a contractor acting on behalf, where it can be reasonably proven. Where possible, compensation will be issued in the form of a voucher, taking into account the value of the goods it the time of the loss and/or damage rather than the full replacement value’.
40. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord had been proactive in attempting to resolve the matter by means of a goodwill gesture. This service agrees it was positive for the landlord to do this as it would cover the resident’s out-of-pocket expenses should she wish to redecorate herself.
41. Whilst this service recognises the landlord explained its gesture of goodwill voucher exceeds the amount which the resident would have been entitled to under the right to repair and therefore felt the amount offered was fair, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should offer compensation in addition to the voucher. This is because it does not reflect the appropriate methods of compensation as set out in section 9.1 of the landlord’s compensation policy. The policy stated that decorating vouchers may be offered as a gesture of good will in cases of damaged property, It does not state that this is the appropriate response for the landlord in cases of delays.
42. Section 8.5 of the compensation policy states, ‘The compensation is fixed by the legislation at an initial sum of £10, plus £2 for every day thereafter that the repair is not completed, up to a maximum of £50. A full list of qualifying repairs is set out within this procedure.’ Given the circumstance and length of time taken to make a repair, this service will be ordering the landlord to pay the resident compensation.

The resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of an operative.

43. The resident explained that an operative arrived twice without a mask and was rude to the resident when she raised this, at the time the resident had kept socially distant from them.
44. The landlord explained that it looked into the concerns raised about the operative not wearing a mask. Following this, a talk took place to remind all operatives to wear face coverings whilst working in homes and to adhere to all covid social guidelines. In its stage one response, the landlord apologised to the resident for this incident.
45. This service recognises at times it is not always possible for landlords to control actions of individual operatives, therefore what we would expect is that the landlord had put measures in place to inform its operatives of how to conduct themselves, and in an instance where a service failing has occurred the landlord takes action to put things right.
46. The evidence shows that the landlord had ensured there was a safe system of work procedures in place for operatives when attending residents’ homes.
47. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied with the landlord’s actions once it had been informed of the matter. The landlord has learnt from the oversight by apologising to the resident, and then reinforced the appropriate actions to prevent future reoccurrences by consulting with its operatives. Accepting and learning from its mistakes is in line with our dispute resolution principles, and in this instance the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has done so.

Determination (decision)

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the replacement shed roof.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof following leaks.
50. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of an operative.

Reasons

51. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider repairs to the shed under its planned maintenance programme.
52. The landlord was proactive in offering a gesture of goodwill to the resident by means of a decorating voucher. However, this did not appropriately reflect the delays and was not in accordance to its policies.
53. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns and spoke with its operatives regarding the matter. The apology to the resident was considered sufficient.

Orders and recommendations

Order

54. The landlord to compensate the resident £100 for delays. This should be completed within four weeks of the date of this letter, and confirmation of payment should be sent to this service.

Recommendations

55. If the roof repairs have not yet been completed, the landlord should update the resident in writing with a timescale for the works to be completed. The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this letter.
56. The landlord to contact the resident and discuss what the current position is regarding the condition of repairs to the shed. If it is found that leaks have reoccurred the landlord to arrange a repair. If the landlord finds no fault, it should explain its findings to the resident. This should be done within four weeks of the date of this letter.