Haringey London Borough Council (202217471)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217471

Haringey Lonsdon Borough Council

30 May 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 response to the leaseholder’s reports of an ongoing leak from the roof.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a two bedroom flat, which is owned by the leaseholder. At the time of the complaint, the flat was occupied by tenants, who were paying rent to the leaseholder. The landlord holds the freehold and, under the lease, is responsible for maintaining the exterior structure of the building, including the roof.
Under the terms of the lease, the leaseholder must pay a service charge and contribute towards the cost of major works to the building. The lease also states the landlord’s obligation to maintain and repair the structure of the building, including the roofs. Refurbishment work, which included a new roof, was completed by the landlord in 2015 as part of a planned major external works programme.

Policies & Procedures

The landlord’s Repairs Policy lists four categories of repair; out of hours, emergency, agreed appointment and planned. Agreed appointment repairs are those that can be completed in a single visit and the landlord aims to complete these within 28 days. Planned repairs are those where the landlord will pre-inspect the job and where it may take several days to complete. The landlord aims to pre-inspect for planned repairs within 28 days, and tell the resident at the inspection when the job will likely be carried out.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure, whereby it will acknowledge stage one complaints within two working days and respond within 10 working days. If the matter remains unresolved, the resident can escalate to the second stage, which the landlord will acknowledge within two working days, and provide a written response within 25 working days. It is noted that the landlord refers to the second stage as an ‘independent review’.
At the time of the complaint, the property was managed by an Arms-Length Management Organisation (ALMO), which operated a Discretionary Compensation Policy. It states that compensation payments should be made within 30 working days of the written offer, and payments of £2,500 or more must be authorised by the Director of Service, Executive Director or Managing Director. The landlord would pay compensation of £15 per week for the failure to carry out emergency repairs until they are resolved. Depending on the priority of other unresolved repairs, the landlord would pay a £10 one-off payment, plus £2 per day for up to three weeks and then, from £5 to £10 per day until the works are completed.

Summary of events

According to the landlord’s records, the leaseholder first reported damp coming from the roof and through his ceiling on 26 February 2020.
On 3 March, and 14 & 22 April 2021, following a Freedom of Information request on how frequently the landlord should maintain the guttering and roof, the leaseholder contacted the landlord. He reminded it that the roofing contractor had advised it to carry out routine inspections every two weeks during winter, and monthly during the warmer periods, to ensure all leaves and debris were cleared from the hopper and downpipes. The leaseholder stated he should not have to claim on his insurance for damp repairs when, over the previous two year period, the landlord had failed to carry out roof maintenance for 17 out of the previous 24 months. On 23 April 2021, the landlord responded to say it would need to look into its contractual obligations and stated that, if the resident felt the need for decoration was due to the landlord’s inaction, insurance would be the best route.
The landlord wrote to the leaseholder on 14 July 2021 to confirm that, in order to address the water ingress from the roof, it had ordered scaffolding and that work was due to commence on 1 September 2021 to install deep flow guttering to his part of the roof, as well as a wider downpipe and hopper.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord wrote again to the leaseholder to say that the contractor had been unable to put up the scaffolding but that it was waiting for a definitive date for when the scaffold would be installed.
The leaseholder raised a stage one complaint on 6 October 2021, which stated the following:
1. Following a major works programme, which included a new roof, guttering and downpipes, the roof had leaked consistently for the last four to five years causing damp, mould and leaks into the bedroom, bathroom and kitchen.
2. The landlord had originally stated the issue was due to leaves and sap from nearby trees. Finally, in August 2021, after waiting for over four years for a solution, it told him that the guttering, downpipes and hopper were too small for the roof.
3. The leaseholder stated that the works were meant to be completed on 1 September 2021 but that, at the time of his complaint, the landlord had still not given him a date for when the scaffolding would go up.
4. He said he was in possession of written proof that the landlord had not adhered to the maintenance schedule the roofing contractor provided, which demonstrated its negligence in carrying out repairs.
5. The leaseholder stated that the landlord had ignored his emails. He listed the outcomes he wanted, which included an acknowledgement of the stress and anxiety caused, financial compensation, a discount of his major works contribution and for the roof to be fixed.
On 20 October 2021, the landlord sent its stage one response, which stated the following:
1. It apologised for the issues the leaseholder was experiencing and for the stress and anxiety caused.
2. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and explained that it was in the process of getting access to the ground floor properties to be able to erect scaffolding and complete the roof repairs.
3. It told him that he was expected to pay his service charge as normal and that any redress for service failures should be addressed through the landlord’s Discretionary Compensation Policy. It confirmed that the Major Works team signed the works off as satisfactory when they were completed.
4. The landlord stated that the ongoing issues with the roof and guttering were due to falling leaves from large trees in the area that were blocking the gutters and downpipes.
5. It said that, once the scaffolding went up, it would clear any blockages and explore alternative sized downpipes. It was also arranging a preventative maintenance programme to regularly clean the guttering and resolve the recurring problem.
On 20 October 2021, the leaseholder responded to the landlord to say he wanted to escalate his complaint. He said it was incorrect to say the ongoing issue was due to falling leaves and that he had an email to prove that the landlord had stated the gutter and downpipes were not large enough for the size of the roof. He asked the landlord to agree that a larger gutter and downpipes would be installed once the scaffold was erected. The leaseholder reiterated that it had failed to follow a planned maintenance programme for several years and that this was in contravention of the roofing contractor’s recommendations.
The landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s stage two complaint on 21 October 2021 and sent a response on 24 November 2021, which stated the following:
1. The landlord stated that it no longer agreed that it had to replace the gutters and downpipe for larger ones and that this option had never been confirmed. It stated that this was only ever a suggestion and that a larger box gutter and downpipe would allow more leaves and debris to get trapped.
2. It explained that it was a previous member of staff who had given assurances about replacing the gutters and that the landlord’s current view was the capacity of the existing gutters were adequate but that regular maintenance was needed to clear the leaves and debris.
3. The landlord confirmed that inspections took place on 17 and 23 June and recommended work to clear the hopper, gutters and downpipes, and scaffolding was subsequently ordered. It said it was advised scaffolding went up on 1 September 2021 but that it would check this was the case.
4. On 9 November 2021, there was a further inspection and a job was booked to clear all hoppers, gutters and downpipes, and scaffolding was not required as the roof was accessible via a hatch. It stated the job was completed on 22 November 2021.
5. It said a further job had been raised for 23 December 2021 to clear all hoppers, gutters and downpipes and that the work was planned to take place before the Christmas break as a precaution, and was in line with the intended four to six week regular clearances. The landlord stated that the roofers would assess when they needed to return and that scaffolding would not be required.
6. The landlord agreed that a planned preventative maintenance plan should have been in place but, in the meantime, clearances would take place as and when required, on an ad hoc basis. It confirmed that, once the preventative maintenance plan was finalised, after the December 2021 visit, it would let the leaseholder know.
7. It said it realised this was not the answer the leaseholder wanted but repeated its apology and acknowledged the impact the issue was having on him.
The leaseholder responded on 24 November 2021 and stated the following:
1. He asked the landlord to refer him to the Resident’s Complaint Panel.
2. He pointed out errors in the stage two response and cited an email to show the landlord had confirmed replacement of gutters and downpipes.
3. He clarified that scaffolding had not been erected on 1 September 2021 and that it was a disgrace that a preventative maintenance schedule was yet to be finalised.
4. He quoted an email he had received from the landlord on 12 November 2021 that said it believed there was a defect with the way the roof had been constructed and that the way the gutter had been installed meant that water was prevented from flowing out of the gutter, and would therefore pool.
5. The leaseholder stated that the lack of maintenance had contributed to the damage to the roof and his property, and to his stress and anxiety.
The leaseholder contacted the landlord on 14 January 2022 to report that his tenant had contacted him to say there was water dripping from his bedroom ceiling. On 19 January 2022, he wrote again to say that he had not had a response for the last five days, despite sending several emails. He said he asked for an emergency repair but was given a date in March and was told someone would call him back to try and provide an earlier date.
Several email exchanges took place between the leaseholder and landlord in May and June 2022, where the leaseholder chased updates regarding the planned roof works. On 8 June 2022 the landlord informed the leaseholder that it would have confirmation of works by 10 June 2022 and, on 24 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder to state that, following discussion with its contractors, it would clear all gutters, hoppers and downpipes, and would replace the hopper heads and downpipes to cater for greater water flow. It confirmed that the contractors intended to erect scaffolding and start works on the week starting 18 July 2022.
On 8 and 22 June 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to say he had been told by staff who had left the organisation that the lead flashing was faulty and allowed water to leak into his flat. The landlord has noted in February 2023 that the leading was subsequently corrected but it is not clear when this happened.
On 30 June 2022 the leaseholder contacted the landlord to report that, due to the recent downpour, water had overflowed the gutters and downpipes and was streaming down his walls. On 1 July 2022, the landlord booked an emergency appointment for an operative to attend that day.
On 7 November 2022, the leaseholder contacted the landlord to request reimbursement for the cost of re-painting four rooms affected by damp and mould,due to the leaking roof and sent an invoice for £2997.47 to cover the costs of the work and the delays.
On 15 November 2022, the leaseholder wrote again to the landlord and stated that he had been liaising with it for over a year to fix a leak from the roof that continued to that day. He said it caused damp and mould, and his walls could not be painted as the paint peeled off. His tenants suffered from asthma and he had paid thousands of pounds to paint the flat, which should have been done by the landlord. He confirmed he was in the process of taking his complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord responded on 22 November 2022 to tell him that it had upheld his complaint. It said it had forwarded his invoice to its complaints team so they could process his claim, and apologised that he had to go through the complaints process to move his request forward. On 13 December 2022, the landlord thanked the leaseholder for supplying his bank details and told him that the payment should be in his account within a few days.
On 14 December 2022, the leaseholder wrote to the landlord to say that the scaffolding had been up for a week and wanted to know when the work would take place. He chased this up again on 7 January 2023 and 21 February 2023 and the landlord replied to confirm that works to the rear of the building were completed on 14 February 2023 and that the scaffold would remain in situ in case further works needed to be done.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that the front and rear gutters were cleared on 20 and 21 March 2023 respectively.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has stated that one of his desired outcomes is for some major works service charges to be removed. Whilst we understand his reasons for seeking this resolution, this matter would be better considered by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. The First-Tier Tribunal can issue a binding decision on such disputes, as it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as service charges or breach of lease in the same way as the courts, including if service charges are value for money or if a landlord has breached the lease contract.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident raised issues that date back to 2016. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from March 2021 onwards, which is when evidence shows the leaseholder first raised concerns, following a Freedom of Information request, about the lack of a planned preventative maintenance schedule.

The landlord’s response to the reports of an ongoing leak from the roof

The Ombudsman has noted and wishes to acknowledge that the leaseholder and his tenants have suffered considerable distress and inconvenience as a result of outstanding repairs to the roof of the building. The Ombudsman recognises how upsetting it must have been for the leaseholder’s tenants to be uncomfortable in their home, particularly when living with long term health conditions.
In order to put the issues that led to the complaint into context, it would be helpful to draw attention to internal correspondence from 28 February 2023 that highlighted the issues the landlord was aware of with regard to the roof. It acknowledged that, following completion of the roof work around seven to 10 years previously, the roofing contractor had detailed the requirement for regular maintenance of the guttering and downpipes, and that no planned preventative maintenance (PPM) schedule had ever been in place. It also confirmed that a member of staff had inspected the site and advised the leaseholder that the landlord would replace all the downpipes and hoppers for larger ones. It had inspected and diagnosed poor lead flashing and that this had been corrected. It also identified broken slates caused by scaffold erection and confirmed that, because the block was situated below aline of trees in the park opposite, the gutters and hoppers became blocked and that regular clearance was needed to prevent water overflowing onto the brickwork.
It is not disputed that the building had a problem with leaves from the nearby trees, which collected on the roof and guttering. It is evident, from the information available that, during periods of heavy rainfall, the building’s gutters and downpipes would overflow when blocked, causing water to leak through the ceiling of the property. There is clear evidence the landlord had failed to comply with the roofing contractor’s recommendations to carry out routine inspections, which were meant to take place every two weeks during the winter season, and monthly during the warmer seasons. This was to ensure all leaves and debris were removed from the hopper and downpipes. It is evident the landlord was aware PPM was required but, apart from acknowledging this several times, both internally and to the leaseholder, there is no evidence the landlord took any meaningful action to put this in place until 15 months after it had committed to do so in its final response to the complaint.
In its stage one response, the landlord stated it was arranging a PPM programme and reiterated again, in its stage two response, that it needed to have regular maintenance to clear the leaves and debris. The landlord advised the leaseholder that it expected to finalise a PPM schedule after 23 December 2021 and that it would notify him once it was finalised. There is no evidence the landlord met its commitment to notify the leaseholder or that anything was done to finalise a schedule around this time. It is noted that the landlord suggested it had undertaken some periodic cleaning of the leaves and debris that were causing the guttering and downpipes to overflow; however, due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, it is not clear when this was done or how regularly. As the leaseholder was reporting leaks on a regular basis, it is evident the frequency of these clearances was insufficient in preventing the water ingress.
There is no indication the landlord made any serious efforts to put a regular maintenance programme together, despite repeated contacts from the leaseholder, who was reporting water ingress from the roof. This, in turn, was causing damp and mould problems for around three years. There was ongoing failure by the landlord to meet the commitments made in its responses to arrange a PPM. The landlord made little effort to address the absence of a PPM schedule or take appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports of possible faulty lead flashing. Therefore, it was unable to demonstrate it was doing all it could to prevent leaks from occurring. The failure to take timely action, which lead to a PPM schedule not being implemented for 15 months, resulted in a considerable amount of distress, discomfort and frustration to both the leaseholder and his tenants over a lengthy period of time. It is clear that the excessive amount of time it took for the landlord to finalise a PPM and complete permanent repairs to the roof, resulted in preventable damp, mould and damage to the property that continued for over several years.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication was poor. It often failed to respond to the leaseholder’s enquiries, which would have added to his frustration and anxiety and caused him and his tenants a great deal of uncertainty as to when the problem would be resolved. The landlord consistently failed to manage the leaseholder’s expectations. It provided various dates for when work would take place, or when scaffolding would be erected, only for those commitments not to be met. This meant the works were continually delayed, adding to the leaseholder and his tenant’s frustration. The landlord would only provide explanations for the delays after repeated contact from the leaseholder, who had no choice but to constantly chase for updates. In addition, there were several instances where the landlord would give assurances that it would contact the leaseholder with further information by a specific date, only for the leaseholder to have to chase this up when that date had elapsed.
The landlord provided the leaseholder conflicting information, which would have caused confusion and uncertainty over the nature of the repairs that were required. It suggested, in its stage one response, that the gutters and downpipes were too small for the roof and had to be replaced by larger ones. It its stage two response of 24 November 2021, the landlord advised the leaseholder this was no longer its view, that the gutters and downpipes were of an adequate size and the problem was due to blockages from leaves and debris. However, in an email to the leaseholder, dated 24 June 2022, the landlord advised that its contractors were looking to ‘replace the hopper heads and downpipes to cater for more water flow’. Similarly, the landlord gave mixed messages about the requirement for scaffolding and appeared to change its mind about whether or not it was needed. It should also be noted that the internal email of 28 February 2023 also referred to other repairs, including poor lead work that was affecting the leaseholder’s property. There is no indication in any of the landlord’s records of when this issue had been resolved. The lack of clear messaging was further exacerbated in the landlord’s stage two response that incorrectly advised that scaffolding had been erected on 1 September 2021. The evidence suggests that the scaffolding did not go up until December 2022, which would be 15 months later. The evidence also shows a lack of continuity in progressing and adequately reviewing works identified by staff who had left the organisation. The above examples demonstrate a reliance on inaccurate information, likely due to poor record keeping, ineffective handover procedures and an overall lack of coordination and communication between different teams.
Although, in its stage two response, the landlord offered an apology and acknowledged the impact on the leaseholder of the outstanding roof repairs, it provided incorrect information, such as the date when the scaffolding had been erected, and made little attempt to put things right. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not offer any compensation, particularly as it was clear the failure and delay implementing a PPM schedule, the excessive delay in completing the roof repairs and the failure to investigate reports of a fault in the roof’s construction, caused cumulative damage to the leaseholder’s property. The leaseholder and his tenants were left to deal with leaking ceilings, and damp and mould for around three years. It is unclear, apart from indications that there were difficulties commissioning contractors between July and September 2022, why these issues took so long to address. Although there is a suggestion the landlord did carry out some periodic works, the poor record keeping by the landlord meant it was unclear if and when those works actually took place.
It should be noted that, although the leaseholder asked if he could escalate his complaint to the third stage of the landlord’s complaints process, which was a referral to a Resident’s Complaint Panel, he never received a panel response. Although the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code does not require landlords to offer a third stage in its complaints process, a review by the panel could have been an opportunity for legitimate concerns raised by the leaseholder to have been reviewed and addressed, and the status of any current works and of the PPM to have been reviewed and clarified.
Although the leaseholder’s subsequent complaint, in November 2022 is not the focus of this investigation, it is positive to note that the landlord paid the leaseholder compensation of £2,997.47 in recognition of recent decorations he had to carry out due to damage caused by the leaking roof. It was also appropriate that the landlord was prompt in paying the leaseholder the sum he had requested by way of an invoice, which was done within the 30 working day timescale. This was in line with the landlord’s Discretionary Compensation Policy. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord reimbursed the leaseholder for expenses incurred by redecorating, it did not offer compensation in recognition of overall distress, inconvenience and the time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
Following its payment of £2,997.47, the landlord took a further three months to complete the roof repairs, and scaffolding had been up for around two months prior to the work starting. Evidence shows the leaseholder had to continue chasing the landlord for updates and it was not until after he had approached this Service that the landlord informed him that the works to the rear of the roof had been completed on 14 February 2023.
As referenced throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was significantly lacking. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates’. The landlord’s records give little indication of which works were carried out, when they were completed or if they took place at all. There is no evidence in the landlord’s repair log to support the information in its correspondence to the leaseholder. The landlord mentions, for example, intended four to six week regular clearances in its response to the leaseholder but there is not evidence in the records to indicate that those clearances had taken place. The lack of clear and accurate record keeping would have contributed to the lack of updates to the leaseholder, the failure to meet agreed timescales and the protracted delays in resolving the outstanding issues with the roof. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was severe maladministration in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the way the landlord responded to the leaseholder’s reports of an ongoing leak from the roof.

Reasons

The landlord failed to comply with the roofing contractor’s recommendations to implement a planned preventative maintenance programme to ensure the guttering and downpipes were kept unblocked. This caused water to leak through the leaseholder’s ceiling for around three years, casing damp and mould in the property. It took the landlord three years to complete a repair and, when the leaseholder had to continually chase it for updates, the landlord’s communication was poor. It failed to manage the leaseholder’s expectations, providing commitments it continually failed to meet and failed to provide proper records of when any interim works had been done. When the landlord was reminded by the leaseholder that it should have implemented a regular PPM schedule, it took 15 months to finalise this, which meant the leaseholder and his tenants had to deal with a leaking roof for an unnecessarily protracted period of time.

Orders

The landlord to pay the leaseholder £2,100 compensation in recognition of the lengthy delays, poor communication, distress and the time and trouble pursuing the complaint. This must be paid within four weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord to apologise to the leaseholder, within four weeks of the date of this determination, for the delays, poor communication, distress and the time and trouble, in line with this Service’s guidance that:
1. An apology should be made by the landlord as a body, rather than an identified member of staff.
2. An apology should acknowledge the maladministration or service failure; accept responsibility for it; explain clearly why it happened; and express sincere regret.
3. Where appropriate, an apology should include assurances that the same maladministration or service failure should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to try to ensure this.
The landlord to liaise with the leaseholder to establish if there are any current issues with water ingress, reviewing appropriate actions and communicating this to the leaseholder and to report back to this Service within four weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord to confirm that its planned preventative maintenance programme for the gutters up until March 2024 is on schedule, and confirm the schedule to the resident if it has not already done so. Within four weeks of receiving this determination, to report back to this Service that this has been done.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach and ensuring that it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and also about reviewing its approach to record keeping in relation to repairs. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around the landlord’s complaint handling or record keeping in this report, but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall review of its approach to complaint handling and record keeping.
In light of the findings and comments in this investigation, the landlord should review its wider approach to planned preventative maintenance programmes (PPMs) across its entire housing stock, to ensure that it has an effective and proactive approach in place which ensures that a responsive service is provided for its residents.
The landlord to review the way it records and logs repairs to ensure it keeps comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates, as recommended in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.