One Housing Group Limited (202114995)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114995

One Housing Group Limited

25 April 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The tenancy started on 1 April 2019. The property is a three-bedroom house.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In her contact with the Ombudsman in November 2021, the resident said the ongoing water ingress was impacting her and her family’s physical and emotional wellbeing, as they were depressed and stressed over the ongoing situation.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As this type of claim is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this allegation will not be investigated.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s repair records show that on 23 December 2020, the resident reported an issue with water ingress coming into her daughter’s upstairs bedroom, when it rained. The landlord’s notes stated the leak was “containable” but indicated an issue with the roof or roof space. As it identified the property was within the defect period, it referred the job to the property’s developers (the developers).
The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a further job with the developer on 5 February 2021 to: ‘inspect leak in bedroom’ and to take photos.
On 20 May 2021, the resident reported that the water ingress was ongoing, and the landlord raised a further job with the developer. It referred to photos which it said were attached. On 21 May 2021, the developer inspected the property and on 25 May 2021, the landlord suggested to the developer that they should enlist a specialist leak detection company to locate the point of entry.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord supplied a dehumidifier to the resident to place in the bedroom affected by the leak.
On 27 May 2021, the developer emailed the landlord photos of the inspection and stated that it seemed that the waterproofing around the drainage hoppers (at the neighbouring plot) may have failed and needed investigating. They advised they were sourcing an alternative contractor to attend as the original contractor was no longer trading.
The landlord contacted the developer on 1 June 2021 asking them to let it know when the repair work had been booked in. It also asked if they would compensate the resident for the cost of running the dehumidifier.
On 14 July 2021, the developer advised the landlord that it intended to start works on 19 July 2021 to: “remove and reinstate capping, remove and temporary fix cladding and investigate further/repair leak if able to”. The landlord relayed this information to the resident. The evidence indicates that sealant works at the neighbouring plot took place on this date however, the resident complained to the and the landlord that no one had attended her property.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord contacted the developer to chase up the capping work and advised the resident of this on the same date.
On 11 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord asking for the repairs to be completed by September 2021 as she was going on holiday after that. The resident said that she was dissatisfied with the progress of the repairs and said she had lost many days off work to facilitate visits however the issue remained unresolved.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord contacted the developer advising of the resident having complained about the failure to resolve the leak issue. It asked for an update and said it would be seeking reimbursement costs for the dehumidifier that had been supplied to the resident over three months ago
On the same date, it apologised to the resident that the works had taken so long and advised that it had chased the developer again asking for an urgent repair. It said it understood some works to the roof had taken place a few weeks ago but unfortunately this had not resolved the issue.
On 18 August 2021, the landlord advised the remedial work was planned for 20 August 2021 and asked her to the confirm access for the contractor.
On 23 August 2021, the resident advised the landlord that on one had turned up on 20 August 2021 and she asked to be reimbursed with the cost of running the dehumidifier.
The landlord queried the non-attendance on 20 August 2021, with the developer who advised on 25 August 2021 that the roofing contractor had carried out works to fix the leak on 20 August 2021. However, they had carried out works to the roof above from the neighbouring plot so access to the property was not needed. They apologised for not informing the resident about this.
On 31 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would reimburse her £2 per day for the cost of electricity for running the dehumidifier during periods of usage. It asked the resident if the developer had been back to the property.
On 7 September 2021, the developer told the landlord that the suspected leak source had been resolved. The landlord relayed this information to the resident and advised that she should await rainfall to check if the repair was successful. It said it had asked the developer to reimburse her the cost of the mouldy curtains and they had agreed to reimburse her for the cost of their replacement. It asked her to provide a receipt for these.
On 14 September 2021, the resident reported that the repairs to the property where the leak source was suspected had not worked, as recent rainfall had shown the leak was ongoing. The landlord relayed this information to the developer and asked it for “urgent rectification”.
The developer attended the property on 15 September 2021, to inspect the bedroom and confirmed to the landlord later that the previous works to the roof had not stopped the water ingress. They provided photos to the landlord. The developer confirmed that to identify the exact point of the water ingress, they would carry out a water test and asked the landlord to arrange a suitable time with the resident and the neighbour for them to visit to carry out a water test.
The landlord arranged with the resident and the neighbour a suitable time for the developer to carry out the leak detection test and let the developer know.
On 17 September 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord during a call. The landlord acknowledged her request in an email of the same date in which it advised the resident that it would provide a response within 10 working days.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident. It said it understood that her complaint concerned:
1. A roof leak has been ongoing for a year.
2. Following its advice that the leak in the roof was repaired, she purchased a new set of curtains, however when it rained, water came in again.
3. There had been missed appointments.
4. The room affected was damp, which was unsafe and inconvenient for her daughter as she needed her own room.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s requests for a reimbursement for the cost of two sets of curtains (£50 and £125), the cost of electricity to run the dehumidifier and compensation for time taken to fix the leak and for time taken off work.
In regard to the roof leak, the landlord said between December 2020 and May 2021 the developer were planning works and manufacturing replacement materials for capping the whole block believing this was the cause of the leaks. The landlord explained that this proved to be problematic, difficult and a lengthy process, with further delays in manufacturing during the Covid pandemic.
It said on 20 May 2021, the resident reported water ingress was still occurring and that the developer attended on 21 May 2021 and identified an issue with the outlet to the terrace above affecting her property. This was repaired by waterproofing around a hopper. The landlord said it chased the developer on repeated occasions during June and July 2021 who advised their roofer had liquidated and a new roofer was being appointed which caused considerable delay.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had advised that the developer had missed the scheduled appointment on 19 July 2021 for the roof capping repairs. It made further attempts to obtain updates from the developer during August 2021 and said it asked the resident on 18 August 2021 if she could provide access to the developer on 20 August 2021 to repair the leak. Following this the resident advised they had not attended on that date, however, when queried with the developer, they confirmed they had attended to repair the leak but had not needed access to her home. The landlord said the developer apologised for failing to communicate this to her.
The landlord acknowledged that following the developer providing assurances on 7 September 2021 that they had completed the repair, the resident advised on 14 September 2021 that water ingress was still appearing in the bedroom after rainfall that day. It said the developer attended the next day and advised they needed to arrange a water test. On 23 September 2021, water test dates were finally agreed with her neighbour for the source of leak to be identified and on 27 September 2021 access to the neighbour’s property commenced.
The landlord explained in its response that water leaks were difficult to trace and identify the point of entry. Following any repairs, it is often only possible to check that it has been fixed after further heavy rainfall which does explain some of the delay in conducting these investigations and repair works. Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged that the leak had taken “too long” to fully identify and repair.
The developer had recently advised that there was a possibility of a waterproofing membrane failure which required specialist contractors to attend, it said this was now being arranged. The landlord said this delay was unfortunate and lengthy, and it apologised on behalf of the developer for this delay in identification of the cause.
The landlord said due to the protracted time the developer had taken through several attempts to identify and repair the leak source, it was partially upholding her complaint. The landlord said it had already agreed to compensate her £50 for a set of curtains. In regard to her request for £125.00 to replace the curtains, ordinarily, it would expect her to wash and re-use the damaged curtains in the interim whilst repairs were ongoing until a final resolution had been provided. However, in her case it understood it was clear if a final resolution had been provided and so in recognition of this, it agreed to cover the cost of the additional curtains of £125.00.
The landlord also said that for the length of time taken, it would make a compensation payment of £50.00 to her for the inconvenience she had suffered.
The landlord explained it did not pay compensation for any time required off work to allow access, however, it apologised on behalf of the developer for being told she would need to provide access which was not actually required on the day.
It advised that although the leak was an ongoing problem during wet weather, photographs of bedroom wall showed that the damage was minimal, and the use of dehumidifiers was keeping the room safe to use. The landlord said it would reimburse for the cost of using the dehumidifiers at £2 per day during the times it was used, once they have been removed so that it can cover the full cost. The landlord stated it was continually working with the developer to find a permanent solution.
On 4 October 2021, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage two as she was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said £50 in compensation was unacceptable. Regarding its suggestion she should wash the curtains, she asked if the landlord could collect and wash them as currently they were wet as it had been raining all weekend. She had to move her daughter out of the room yesterday as she woke up with swollen eyes and was coughing. She explained that for the dehumidifier to be effective, it needed to be running whilst it rained. This was too noisy and so she asked the landlord to move them into temporary accommodation until the issue was resolved. She said the offer of £2 per day for running the dehumidifiers electricity did not cover the cost being incurred and she was left “out of pocket”. Her bill was usually £70 per month and this had increased to “over £200”.
On 29 October 2021, the landlord provided a stage two final complaint response. Within this it summarised the remedies requested by the resident in her escalation request and said it was sorry that the situation had taken longer to resolve than it would have liked. However, it said steps had been taken by it and the developer during the last year to identify and resolve the leak which included replacing all roof capping’s and attending to leaking drainage hoppers.
The landlord explained that the leak had been problematic to identify. Since her initial complaint, it had met with the Head of Customer Service at the developer to express its frustration about the elongated time taken to resolve these problems and it requested specialist water testing experts to be enlisted. The developer had confirmed that further work was now taking place to address this outstanding problem and it was monitoring their progress.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in November 2021 and on 22 November 2021, she advised that her complaint was about the landlord’s response to her reports of water ingress and the level of redress offered. She said the water ingress was ongoing and had not been resolved and she needed to use a dehumidifier every time it rained. Regarding compensation, the landlord had compensated her for a damaged desk, but she was expecting further compensation for dry cleaning of curtains as the leak was not resolved. The landlord had not given her a timeframe for completion of repairs.
On 25 November 2021, the landlord’s records indicate it increased its offer of compensation to £935.
In response to the Ombudsman’s evidence request, in March 2022, the landlord confirmed that the works to repair the leak were still outstanding.
On 23 December 2022, the landlord told the Ombudsman that all of the defect works had been completed and that it (in conjunction with the developer) had awarded further compensation to the resident in the sum of £758.

The terms of the tenancy and the landlord’s policies

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property including the roof, outside walls and doors and internal walls, floors and ceilings.
The landlord’s Defect During the Rectification Period (Defects) policy states that:
1. Tenants should report any defects to its Customer Service Centre and the case will be recorded and passed onto the contractor and Aftercare team by email.
2. The contractor shall nominate a named person through whom all matters relating to defects will be channelled. This person will also be responsible for ensuring adherence to the following procedures and the satisfactory resolution of all defects.
3. For urgent defects including ‘containable leaks’, works are to be completed within 5 days. Routine works are to be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s ‘Compensation and other payments’ (compensation) policy states that it will make payments of between £50 and £250 for inconvenience and gestures of goodwill towards time, trouble distress etc.
This policy also states under ‘other payments’, it will make payments for:
1. damage to resident’s items when damage has been caused by failing to meet repair obligations.
2. missed appointments (£10).

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s records show that when the resident first reported water ingress coming into her daughter’s bedroom in December 2020 when it rained, it referred this issue to the developer to investigate and provide a repair. Whilst under the tenancy agreement, the landlord would be responsible for the structure of the property, as it identified that the property was still in the defects period, it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the matter to the developer to investigate the cause of the leak as they were responsible to address any defects found during this timeframe.
Whilst it is clear that the developer made several attempts to identify the cause of the water ingress during 2021 and provide a fix, as at the date of the landlord’s final response to the resident on 29 October 2021, it acknowledged that a resolution to the issue remained outstanding. Therefore, the lack of any effective fix provided during the ten months after the resident first reported the issue, indicates a clear failure to adhere to the 5 and 20 working day timescales stated in its policy for addressing defects. The Ombudsman recognises however that as the issue was being treated as a defect, the landlord was reliant on the developer for delivering a resolution to the problem. Nonetheless, we would expect the landlord to take steps to chase the developer to expedite a fix where there are delays and also provide updates to the resident whilst the repair remains outstanding.
Evidence of the landlord’s internal communications with the developer provided to this Service does not go as far back as December 2020. However, its repairs records show that in December 2020, it raised a job with the developer to investigate the issue which it re-raised in February 2021 after the resident reported the same issue. The landlord’s internal communications with the developer from 20 May 2021 to October 2021 demonstrate that during this timeframe it was proactive in progressing the matter with the developer. The evidence shows it contacted the developer regularly by phone and email seeking updates and when no effective fix had been provided by August 2021, it met with the senior staff at the developer to express its frustration with the lack of a fix provided.
After the resident advised the landlord on 14 September 2021 that the previous repairs completed had not stopped the water ingress, it continued to chase up the repair with the developer by calling and emailing them throughout the rest of September and October 2021. During this timeframe it pushed for a leak detection test and for “urgent rectification”.
Therefore, whilst the landlord’s efforts did not result in a permanent fix, it reported the issue to the developer in December 2020 and again in February 2021 and was then in regular communication with the developer pursuing a resolution to the water ingress issue on behalf of the resident from May to October 2021. Overall, the landlord took sufficient and reasonable steps to expedite a resolution from the developer.
Regarding the landlord’s communication with the resident, the evidence indicates that its contact with her over the ten months reviewed was sporadic. Whilst it relayed information received the developer about dates of visits and when repairs had been provided, there were periods where it did not provide sufficient updates, and these were only provided in response to contact from the resident chasing the works. Also, there were at least two instances on 19 July 2021 and 20 August 2021, where the resident was advised to be at home to allow access, yet operatives did not need to access her property as works were carried out to a different part of the roof.
As such, communication with the resident could have been better at times and insufficient updates and non-attendance of appointments caused the resident to have to contact the landlord on more occasions that should have been necessary. Furthermore, it is of a concern that the landlord did not give any indication in its final response of when the outstanding works were likely to be completed. On balance, these issues would have caused additional stress and inconvenience to the resident.
In terms of what the developer was doing to resolve the leak, in its stage one response, the landlord explained to the resident that in January 2021 the developer identified the need to cap the roof of the whole block as they believed the waterproofing membrane had failed and this was the source of the issue. The landlord’s records however show repairs to the property did not commence until around July 2021, when sealant work to the neighbouring property was carried out on 19 July 2021. Works to cap the roof commenced on 20 August 2021 and were completed on 7 September 2021. Around the same time the developers also repaired an issue with the outlet on the terrace above the property which they had also identified as a possible cause on 21 May 2021. Within its response, the landlord explained that the delay in providing these repairs was because the developer had experienced issues with manufacturing replacement materials during the pandemic and also because the developer had to source an alternative roofing contractor in May 2021 as the original had ceased trading. As the evidence provided to this Service supports the company’s explanation, its response was reasonable in this regard.
Regarding the resident’s request to be decanted until the issue had been resolved, it is usual for landlords to offer temporary decants where a property is deemed uninhabitable due to disrepair issues. The landlord however declined her request as it said as the as the water ingress issue was intermittent and limited to one small area of one bedroom, the room was safe to use and the issue did not warrant a move.
The Ombudsman has reviewed all of the evidence including all photographs of the area of the bedroom affected by the water ingress. Based on the evidence, the landlord’s assessment of the issue was accurate and therefore its decision not to decant the resident was reasonable in the circumstances.
Whilst this review has not considered the landlord’s handling of the issue after its final response, it is noted that in March 2022, the landlord told the Ombudsman that the works to repair the leak were still outstanding. In December 2022 however, the landlord confirmed to us that all of the defect works had been completed and the issue was resolved.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to:
1. Be fair;
2. Put things right and;
3. Learn from outcomes.
We recognise that identifying the source of water ingress can be complex and that it may take more than one attempt to resolve the issue. Further, in this case, one of the repairs attempted by the developer involved a major roof repair and additional delays were caused by factors outside of the landlord or developer’s control, including difficulties in sourcing materials during the pandemic. These issues added to the overall delay and meant the leak was not addressed within the timescales stated in the landlord’s defect policy. Nonetheless, given the length of time without any fix, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have provided the resident with adequate redress which put right the issues encountered.
In its final response, the landlord apologised for the extended timeframe without any resolution to the water ingress. It also offered the resident a payment in the total amount of £806. This figure was increased to £935 a few weeks later. This amount was for:

£406 for electricity costs to run the dehumidifier based on £2.00 per day (29 weeks x 7 days x £2) – In the absence of any evidence to show the costs of electricity incurred by the resident was greater than the amount offered by the company, on balance the £406 payment offered by the company, is reasonable.
£350 for the costs of replacing and dry-cleaning curtains damaged by the water ingress and £129 for the cost of replacing her daughter’s desk which was water damaged – This is in accordance with its compensation policy and is therefore appropriate.
£50 in compensation for inconvenience – this offer does not adequately recognise the extent of the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family.

Therefore, overall, the landlord did not provide sufficient redress to the resident for the issues encountered.
In the circumstances, it is reasonable to order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £700 in compensation (£750 in total) based on £75 per month for the ten month timeframe reviewed. This is greater than the maximum amount for inconvenience stated in landlord’s compensation policy (£250). Given the failures identified in this report, including the lack of an effective resolution provided over ten months, this is reasonable and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which recommends between £100 to £1000 for maladministration where a failure has had a significant impact on the resident. An additional £20 has been included in the order below the two occasions that appointments with the resident were not kept. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states £10 per missed visit.
Whilst the landlord advised us that it had awarded the resident a further £758 following the resolution of the issue in December 2022, as this relates to the timeframe since its final response, this compensation amount has not been reviewed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of water ingress into the property.

Reasons

Whilst landlord took steps to contact the developer in order to progress the works to address the defect, no effective resolution was provided during the ten-month timeframe reviewed. Further, the landlord did not always provide sufficient updates to the resident and she was not informed when scheduled appointments for access were no longer needed.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Provides an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident additional compensation of £720 comprising:
  1. £700 for stress and inconvenience (£750 in total).
  2. £20 for missed appointments.
3. Complies with the above orders within four weeks.