Harlow District Council (202204857)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204857

Harlow District Council

26 June 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 is about the landlord’s handling of leaks in the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom, first floor flat. The landlord is a local authority.
In March 2020 the resident reported a leak coming into his property when it rained. The landlord identified that this was caused by a cracked downpipe and the repair was completed on 15 December 2020. Between October and November 2020 the resident went through the landlord’s complaints procedure and in its final response it partially upheld the complaint because it took longer than it would have liked to resolve the issue.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s lease agreement confirms that the landlord must maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters and external pipes.
The landlord’s leaseholder handbook also confirms that it is responsible for the upkeep of roofs, gutters and drains. It sets out the following repair categories:
1. Emergency – these are repairs that could cause serious damage to the property and the landlord aims to attend within two hours to make safe.
2. Urgent – these are repairs that cause serious inconvenience to people living in their homes and the landlord commits to complete these within five working days.
3. Planned response maintenance – these repairs are generally planned or larger works, which may require statutory consultation before works can be carried out and the landlord commits to complete these within one year.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that it would respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within fifteen working days. It said that if this was not possible, it would tell the resident.

Summary of events

On 28 January 2022, the resident made contact about water ingress into his property. The landlord treated this as a stage one complaint and acknowledged it in writing the same day and said a response would be provided by 11 February 2022.
On 3 February 2022, the resident reported a water leak in his bathroom and a job was raised for this. The landlord resealed the rain water outlet on 7 March 2022 and reinspected on 27 April 2022 as the bathroom leak had stopped but a leak had started in the living room. It identified that it needed to replace some of the upstand and felt on the roof, which was done and the job completed on 19 May 2022.
On 7 February 2022 the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint received on 28 January 2022. It confirmed that it was still investigating and that a response would be sent as soon as possible. The resident chased the response on 11 February and 4 March 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 7 March 2022 and said:
1. It apologised for the delay and explained this was due to a high volume of enquiries being received but said it had been in contact with him and sent a letter advising him there would be a delay.
2. The leak was believed to be a plumbing issue from the property above, but it had identified that it was caused by a cracked rainwater pipe, which was not easily accessible as it was behind a cavity wall. The initial proposed solution to this issue had not been possible and a previous repair carried out had been unsuccessful. It was attending that day to carry out a further repair and it was confident that would resolve the issue.
3. The complaint was upheld due to a lack of communication throughout the process and the completion of the repair taking longer than it would have liked.
On 21 March 2022, the resident made contact about the roof repair and the landlord treated this as a request to escalate his complaint to stage two. It acknowledged this the following day and said a response would be provided by 11 April 2022.
On 5 April 2022 the landlord apologised that he had not received a response to his complaint and confirmed one would be sent as soon as possible.
The resident chased the response on 11 April 2022 and on 26 May 2022 the landlord provided the stage two response, which said:
1. It apologised for the delay and explained this was due a high volume of enquiries.
2. A roof repair carried out in March 2022 was successful in resolving the leak at the front of the property, caused by a leaking rainwater pipe.
3. There had also been a leak at the back of the property which the landlord had attended on 19 May 2022. It had spoken to him that day and arranged a further visit to confirm the issue was resolved.
4. The flat roof was very large, which meant finding and resolving leaks could “sometimes be a process of trial and error by a process of elimination”.
5. The complaint was upheld because the repair had taken longer than it should have done to resolve.
In June and July 2022, the resident contacted this Service and said:
1. A leak had started a year ago and despite sending e-mails and phoning on many occasions, the landlord had failed to repair the problem, which had left him with damage to his property.
2. The leak had caused him and his family “serious illness” and he had been in hospital because of the stress.
3. His property was losing value and he could not sell because of the issue.
4. He wanted the landlord to find and fix the leak as soon as possible and he wanted compensation for the impact on his and his family’s health.
On 4 October 2022, the resident reported leaks coming into his property in various places. The landlord inspected the property above the next day and identified a leak that had not been reported by the neighbour. A job was raised with a target date for completion as 26 October 2022. The resident contacted this Service on 27 October 2022 and said that he had been chasing the landlord for an update every two days but had heard nothing back from them. This repair was completed on 9 November 2022 and from the evidence provided, at least three appointments were made to carry out this repair between 5 October and 9 November 2022, although it is not clear the reason for this number of appointments being made.
In May 2023, the resident told this Service that the leaks had been resolved but that he was not happy with the length of time it had taken the landlord to do this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This Service has been provided with evidence of a leak in the resident’s property reported in March 2020 and resolved in December 2020. While a summary of this has been included in the background for context, this has not been assessed as part of the complaint due to this having taken place over twelve months prior to the resident bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman; meaning it falls outside of the scope of this investigation.
The resident has told this Service that this issue has had a negative impact on his and his family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While this Service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
The resident has told this Service that the landlord’s failure to repair the leaks, left him with damage to his property. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to assess negligence or liability in the same way that an insurance process or court might. Instead, this Service will look at the repairs in the light of the landlord’s contractual obligations and relevant policies and procedures, to determine if any service failure has taken place.

Handling of leaks in the resident’s property

The resident made contact about water ingress into his property on 28 January 2022 and this was treated as a complaint. This suggests that his contact related to an ongoing issue, rather than a new service request. When asked by this Service for contact records, the landlord was unable to provide these, suggesting that it does not record all contacts with residents. This is a concern as the absence of records means this Service is not able to fully understand what happened or whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. It is important that landlord’s keep detailed records of resident contact so it has an audit trail of what it has done, so it can account for its actions and decisions as well as for use in any formal action.
In February 2022 a roof leak was reported and repaired in 23 days and in April 2022, a further leak was identified and repaired in 16 days. In its complaint responses in March and May 2022, the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in it completing these, which was reasonable considering the nature of the repairs and the impact of water leaking in to the residents property when it rained. In its final complaint response in May 2022, the landlord said that finding and resolving leaks on the flat roof could “sometimes be a process of trial and error by a process of elimination”. It was reasonable that the landlord be realistic about the challenges it faced in dealing with leaks on a roof of this size and type; however, due to the number of leaks reported and identified, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider taking a more proactive approach to resolving this issue. Rather than waiting for further leaks to be reported by the resident and responding to these, it could have considered carrying out a full inspection of the roof in order to identify any further issues and resolve these.
In October 2022 the resident reported a leak and it was identified as coming from the property above. This was repaired 27 days later, which was over its completion target. The records indicate that several appointments were made with the neighbour but it is not clear from the evidence provided the reason for this. No details of resident contacts have been provided to explain this, despite the Ombudsman asking the landlord for these; and without understanding the reason for these appointments, it is not possible to determine whether there was any failure by the landlord in its actions that subsequently led to the delay. This is a further example of why keeping detailed records is vitally important.
In its stage one response, the landlord accepted there had been a lack of communication with the resident, which was appropriate as there is no evidence of any updates being provided, other than the complaint responses. In July 2022, the resident said that he had been in contact with the landlord many times and in October 2022 that he had been calling the landlord every two days but getting no response. The evidence provided does not show this, but the landlord does not appear to record resident contact and so it is again, not possible to determine the exact number of times the resident chased the landlord for updates. However, it is reasonable that the resident would have taken additional time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates in respect of these leaks.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks in the resident’s property. The landlord has been unable to fully account for its actions and decisions due to the lack of records. This has prevented the Ombudsman from fully understanding the landlord’s actions or inactions that have contributed to the poor communication and delays, which will understandably, be frustrating for the resident. The delays in the landlord resolving the leaks meant that the resident was left for periods of time with water coming in to his property, which would have been upsetting. The leaks meant that the resident could not progress with his own cosmetic repair works and he raised concerns that his property was losing value and impacting him being able to sell, which would have been worrying for him. There was a lack of communication with the resident about the progress of the repairs and this resulted in him making formal complaints in order to get updates. The resident said that he chased the landlord many times for updates and the lack of responses would have been frustrating for him and he subsequently told this Service that this resulted in him suffering with stress and being hospitalised. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation made up of £200 for the distress and inconvenience and £150 for the time and trouble taken in chasing updates on this matter. Further orders have also been made for the landlord to review and improve its record keeping arrangements and provide staff training on this matter.

Complaint handling

The records indicate that the landlord treated a number of phone calls from the resident as formal complaints, which was appropriate. However, when asked to provide records of these phone contacts, the landlord was unable to do so. This again indicates that the landlord does not record all contacts with residents, which is concerning for reasons set out earlier in this report. A recommendation has been made below in respect of this issue.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint in 27 days and the stage two complaint in 46 days, which were over its committed response times. On both occasions, the landlord apologised and provided the resident with an update regarding the delay and the reasons for this, which was appropriate. However, the updates did not give a revised timeframe for the responses to be provided, which is best practise. As the update only told the resident that the response would be sent “as soon as possible”, it was not clear when this would be provided, which resulted in the resident chasing again, which could have been avoided had the landlord provided a revised date for the responses to be issued. This would have, understandably, been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord accepted service failure and apologised to the resident in the stage one and stage two complaint responses. While appropriate, there is no evidence that it considered any other actions required to put things right, or any learning from the complaints.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because of the delayed responses and the lack of revised response times being provided, that resulted in the resident further chasing the responses. The landlord admitted service failure but failed to consider other actions needed to put things right and there is no evidence of any consideration around lessons learned. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation for its poor complaint handling. There is also an order made for the landlord to review the resident’s complaints and its responses to identify any wider learning it could take from these.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord resolving leaks to the resident’s property, which caused frustration and upset to him and delayed him being able to carry out cosmetic repairs in his property. There was also a failure to update the resident and this resulted in him making formal complaints to receive updates on the progress of the repairs. The lack of records around resident contact has prohibited the Ombudsman from fully understanding how the landlord’s actions contributed to the delays and poor communication, which will be frustrating for the resident.
There were delays in the complaint handling and despite updating the resident about this, the landlord failed to provide a revised timeframe and so the resident continued to chase the responses. While it admitted service failure and apologised, it did not consider any other actions it could take to put things right or any wider learning from the complaints.

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £500 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of leaks to his property.
  2. £150 for the time and trouble taken by him in chasing updates on the repairs.
  3. £150 for the poor complaint handling.
2. Review the resident’s complaints and its responses to identify any wider learning it could take from these.
3. Review its record keeping arrangements in respect of resident contact, with a view to recording all contact and attempted contact going forward. The landlord to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management for guidance and best practice on this subject.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks.
Within six weeks, the landlord to implement actions to improve its record keeping arrangements in respect of resident contact and provide staff training on these updated arrangements, including the importance of keeping detailed records.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with this order to this Service within six weeks.