Livv Housing Group (202125700)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125700

Livv Housing Group

09 September 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. The complaint concerns how the landlord:
   1. responded to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
   2. how it handled the associated repairs.

Background

2. The resident is a shared owner of the property with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a new-build house.
3. The resident reported a leak from the roof of the property to the landlord in December 2019. The landlord informed the resident that, the leak would be her responsibility to repair as leaseholder. An inspection of the roof in January 2020 determined the source of the leak to be a latent defect in the property and therefore it was the responsibility of the builder to resolve.
4. Following correspondence between the landlord and builder, the landlord informed the resident that the builder had disputed that the issue was the result of a latent defect and, as a goodwill gesture, it had made the decision to undertake the repair. Several visits were then undertaken to the property in February and March 2020 by the landlord’s roofing contractor, electrician and surveyor. The landlord’s records state that it completed repairs to the roof in June 2020 and that follow-on work was undertaken in August and October 2020.
5. On 10 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as the length of time it was taking for the repairs to be completed, the poor service she had received from the contractor, the conduct of the contractor’s operatives, and the poor communication she had received from the landlord and contractor as to the status of the work.
6. In its responses to the complaint, the landlord:
   1. Apologised for the delays and poor communication experienced by the resident. It accepted that the resident had not been kept properly updated with the progress of the repairs. It explained that the contractor’s first visit was to inspect the roof to assess what work was required, and that its second visit was to make temporary repairs while it was waiting for the materials required to complete the work.
   2. Informed the resident that the surveyor had taken over the repairs from the roofing contractor on 20 March 2020.
   3. Stated that it had arranged for a second contractor to inspect the work to the roof and its property manager would liaise with the resident until the work had been completed to her satisfaction.
   4. Informed the resident that following further reports stating her concerns that the leak from the roof remained, its surveyor had conducted an inspection which found that there had been no further leaks from the roof and the insulation inside the roof had remained dry. It then informed the resident that the surveyor had concluded that the wetness on the ceiling was due to condensation.
   5. Noted that as the stain block used on the bathroom ceiling was waterproof, this could cause some condensation to appear when the shower was used but would clear with normal ventilation. It also explained that it had found a gap in the insulation which could have also caused condensation, and that this gap had now been filled.
   6. Offered £100 as a goodwill gesture towards decoration.
7. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues as disagreement that the continued wet patches were as a result of condensation. She asserted that because the water stains occurred as a result of the work done by the landlord, it should undertake decoration to the ceiling. The resident also advised that following further correspondence, the landlord had increased its goodwill gesture towards decoration to £200.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

8. Clause 3 of the leasehold agreement concerns the leaseholder’s responsibilities towards the property. Clause 3.6 relates to repairs and states that the leaseholder agrees to “repair and keep the Premises in good and substantial repair and condition”. Clause 3.7 of the leasehold agreement relates to decoration and states that the leaseholder agrees to “paint, paper, treat and generally decorate in a style appropriate to a property of a like character all the inside and outside of the Premises”.
9. The landlord categorises its repairs as “Emergency” (respond within 24 hours) and “Routine” (complete within 20 working days). Emergency repairs are defined as “any fault which threatens harm to persons or property”.
10. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will consider offering a complainant compensation or a goodwill gesture in circumstances where “we agree we should have provided a better customer experience and an apology alone would not be proportionate”. The policy does not give any guidance of what level of redress should be offered to a complainant.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property

11. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the delays and the poor communication. It explained what work had been carried out and what further work was required. It also informed her that the roofing contractor would no longer be involved in the remaining work, which would be overseen by the surveyor. This approach by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
12. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by apologising, making changes to the staff involved in completing the repairs, and providing a full explanation to the resident as to what work had been completed and what remained outstanding. It looked to learn from its errors by improving its communication and keeping the resident updated as the work progressed. The email correspondence provided to this Service shows that, after the complaint process, the landlord responded to the resident’s queries in a timely manner and also sent periodic update emails informing the resident on the status of the work.
13. However, it would also have been appropriate, and in line with its policy on compensation and goodwill gestures, for the landlord to award compensation to the resident in recognition of the poor service she experienced and the inconvenience that this had caused her. Accordingly, while the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was good overall, the omission of a fair and reasonable consideration of compensation was a service failure.
14. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure resulting in some impact on a complainant. As examples of when this level of redress should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. Repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls.
    2. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
15. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £150 in recognition of the poor communication she received from it, the poor level of service she experienced from the original roofing contractor and the inconvenience that this caused.

How the landlord handled the associated repairs

16. The property is a new build house, which the resident moved into in June 2014. Upon completion of the building of the property there is a period of time, usually six to twelve months, known as the defect liability period. During this period any defects in the property are resolved by the builder. Once the defect liability period ends, the builder is still responsible for resolving any latent defects during the period of time the property is under warranty, which is normally ten years. Latent defects are defects that were not apparent until after the expiry of the defect liability period.
17. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the builder when its inspection concluded that the cause of the leak was from a latent defect. It was also reasonable for the landlord to take the decision to undertake the repairs when the builder disputed its position. This action prevented a potentially lengthy delay in completing repairs, if the landlord needed to consider legal action against the builder in order to determine repair responsibility.
18. Once the landlord had agreed to undertake the repairs to the roof to resolve the leak, it was obligated to complete the work in a timely manner in line with its policies and procedures for routine repairs. It is not in dispute that there were significant delays in completing the work, that the resident experienced a poor level of service from the original roofing contractor, and that she also received poor communication from the landlord.
19. The resident has continued to experience damp patches on the ceilings of the property and has stated that she believes that this is the result of the roof repairs by the landlord not resolving the leak. The resident also highlighted an email sent by the landlord on 23 June 2020 where she was informed by the landlord that the ceiling would need to be replaced if it did not dry out. The email sent by the landlord informed the resident that the work to the roof had been completed and advised not to decorate the ceiling until it had completely dried out. The email, in part, states:
    1. “[The surveyor] has recommended that the drying out process should continue until you decorate in January 2021, if the patch to the ceiling is still showing through and cannot be covered, we will need to replace a section of the ceiling and redecorate the entire ceiling. Hopefully the ceiling will continue to dry out and no further work will be required but please come back to me”.
20. The landlord’s records state that follow-on work to the roof was completed on 13 August 2020 and a further inspection of the ceilings and roof occurred in October 2020 following a report from the resident. In its follow-on complaint response sent on 18 May 2021, the landlord informed the resident that its inspections had found that there had been no further leaks from the roof and the insultation in the loft was dry.
21. The landlord has relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the leak had been successfully repaired. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure for this aspect of the complaint. As stated in the leasehold agreement, the resident is responsible for repairs and decoration of the property. The landlord has explained why it is satisfied that the latent defect that it took responsibility for has been resolved, and therefore it no longer has any responsibility for repairs. However, in light of the length of time it took for the work to be completed, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer a goodwill gesture towards the costs of decoration.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it responded to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
23. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress following how it handled the associated repairs.

Orders

24. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £150. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made. The compensation award is in addition to the goodwill gesture already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process.

Recommendations

25. The landlord to pay the £200 gesture of goodwill towards decoration, if it has not done so already.