Islington Council (202010660)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010660

Islington Council

28 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the building.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of workmanship provided by the landlord.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
4. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the building in 2009.
5. The level and reasonableness of service and major works charges.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

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 landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the building in 2009

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the resident’s complaint about handling of repairs to the roof of the building in 2009 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
The resident has complained that works to his roof in 2009 led to an issue with the roof leaking over the following years. There is no evidence that the resident made a complaint about the roof repairs of 2009 within a reasonable period of time, or that he raised a complaint about leaks to the roof until October 2020. This Service has not seen evidence which indicates that the resident was unable to make a complaint about the 2009 roof works within a reasonable time.
For this reason, the resident’s complaint about the works carried out in 2009 are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. However, the resident’s complaint about roof leaks from October 2020 has been considered (complaint 1a above).

The level and reasonableness of service and major works charges

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the resident’s complaint about the level and reasonableness of service and major works charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident told the landlord on 21 October 2020 that he wanted to challenge a bill he had received for major works at his property. The charges related to two sets of works the landlord had completed. The first was in 2009 and the second in 2018. The resident said that he disagreed with the amount he had been charged for the works from 2018, as the quality of the work was poor.
Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.
The resident’s complaint requires a binding decision on the level of charges which should be paid, and is therefore not one which the Ombudsman will consider. The appropriate body to decide such complaints is the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The First Tier Tribunal 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. It would therefore be more reasonable and effective for the resident to seek a determination on the reasonableness of the service charges and the standard of work the charges relate to, from the First Tier Tribunal.
The Ombudsman has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the workmanship of its operatives. However, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s actions purely in how it responded to the concerns about quality of work, and not how it relates to the reasonableness of the charges levied to the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord and the landlord is the freeholder of the property, which is a 2 bedroom flat. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the property was managed by a managing agent acting on behalf of the landlord. The managing agent responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one, and the landlord provided the stage two complaint response.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 21 October 2020 and said that he wanted to contest a bill for works it completed at his property. Part of the bill related to works it had completed to his roof in 2009, and part of the bill related to works it had completed 2018. He said:
1. He was contesting the bill because of the “quality of the work and lack of preparation”;
2. He asked the landlord to visit his property, so he could discuss the works in person;
3. He had “ongoing issues with [the landlord…] going back many years”, this was due to it replacing the roof at his property “by mistake”, and he still had leaks as a result.
The landlord responded on 3 December 2020 and confirmed that its operatives had attended that week to ‘make good’ the works it had carried out at the property. It is not clear from the evidence available, what works the landlord completed to ‘make good’. It asked the resident if he had any further queries relating to the charges, otherwise it would begin the closure of the “final account”. The resident responded on 8 December 2020 and said that he still disputed the charge, and his concern related to matters that dated back to 2009. He asked for a “complete breakdown of the bill”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 December 2020 with a copy of the bill for the works it had carried out in 2018 and said:
1. It was of the view that the resident was challenging the quality of the works carried out in 2018, and it had sent operatives out to rectify the works;
2. The resident had confirmed that he was happy with what they had done to rectify the works;
3. It was not investigating matters that dated back to 2009.
On 16 December 2020, the landlord sent the resident a ‘final account challenge’ letter, and said that it had conducted a full investigation of his challenge. It said it had decided that the “charges levied” were due, because it had now “made good works carried out”. It said that if the resident was not happy with its final decision on the matter, he was able to apply to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) to challenge its decision.
The resident wrote the landlord a letter titled “stage one formal complaint”, on 17 December 2020 and said:
1. £500 of his outstanding charges related to matters from 2009, when the landlord removed his roof in “error”;
2. The works it had recently done to replace two windows were only needed because the landlord had failed to properly maintain them, and he should therefore not be charged;
3. The standard of work it had done was “very poor”;
4. He had told an operative for the landlord that lead flashing was missing from the roof, and the operative had told him that it was not needed;
5. Its service charges were excessive;
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 December 2020 and said that it was unable to reopen his “final accounts challenge”, as the process was complete. It advised the resident he could take the matter to the FTT, if he was dissatisfied with its final response on the matter.
This Service has not been provided with any evidence of further correspondence between the email of 24 December 2020 and 21 May 2021, when the landlord issued a response to the resident’s complaint and said:
1. It had not contacted the resident to discuss his complaint, as it already had an understanding of his concerns from his email of 4 May 2021;
2. His complaint related to “costs from 12 years ago and the final account charges” related to those works;
3. Its complaint procedure did not cover:
  1. Where an issue is reported that happened more than 12 months ago;
  2. Where the resident was taking or was “likely” to take legal action;
  3. Where the resident was pursuing independent arbitration;
  4. Where the resident was disputing a level of service charge, as its ‘service charge challenge procedure’ made provision for this;
4. The resident could challenge the level of service charge by taking his case to the FTT;
5. The resident’s complaint fell “outside of the remit” of its complaints procedure, and said to contact it if he was dissatisfied with its complaint response, within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 May 2021, and asked it to escalate his complaint to the next stage and said:
1. Issues dating back to 2009 had “led to water ingress” at his property;
2. He believed his complaint did not sit outside of its complaint procedure;
3. Its stage one response did not tell him how to escalate his complaint to the next stage;
4. He was unhappy that the landlord had done its investigation without speaking to him.
The landlord sent the resident a stage one “follow up” response on 18 June 2021 and said:
1. Following a request to escalate his complaint to stage two, its central complaints team had asked it to provide a follow up response;
2. It had called the resident on 4 June 2021 to “go through all aspects” of his complaint;
3. He had told it that he had been complaining about repairs since 2009;
4. It repeated its advice that the resident could challenge the level and reasonableness of service charges through the FTT;
5. It advised that its complaint procedure did not cover events that were more than 12 months old;
6. It could find no evidence that the resident had raised a formal complaint about the matters within 12 months;
7. It had not overturned its decision at stage one, as it had found no failures in its service;
8. It told the resident how he could escalate his complaint to stage two (the “chief executive stage”);
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2021 and told it that he was unhappy with its response and wanted to escalated his complaint to stage two. He said that its response was not clear and he wanted an “unambiguous” response.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 23 December 2021 and said it:
1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the stage two complaint and offered £75 in compensation for the delay;
2. Restated its position that challenges relating to service charges and quality of works would need to be raised with the FTT;
3. Had reconsidered its handling of the roof repair and said that in April 2020 it was left unclear who should contact a surveyor about proposed repairs;
4. Should have raised the repair itself, and not have waited for the resident to do so, which caused a delay in completing the repair;
5. Found there was a delay between April 2020 and December 2020, “less one month” for the works to be completed;
6. Offered £150 in compensation for the delay in completing the repair, and £50 in compensation for the time and trouble caused by the resident pursuing the matter.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

The resident contacted the landlord on 23 January 2022, and told it that the roof was still leaking. The repair log provided for this investigation shows only one repair logged about a roof leak, on 16 February 2022. The notes on this entry show that the landlord told the resident it had categorised the repair as “urgent”, and gave a seven day timeframe for the repair. It states it was due to attend on 22 February 2022, but the resident asked it to rearrange for 9 March 2022. The landlord attended on 9 March 2022 and completed “extensive repairs” where water was getting in through the roof.
The resident contacted this Service on 15 March 2022 and said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response, and wanted the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. The landlord wrote to this Service on 22 March 2022 and told us that the issue with the resident’s roof was still outstanding and there was “an ongoing leak in the property from the roof”.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the roof of the property in “good repair”.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will conduct a ‘making good’ visit following repairs. The policy gives indicative timeframes for when it will respond to repairs. For “urgent” repairs, that affect a resident’s “day-to-day” living it says it will respond within 24 hours.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that the landlord can award between £100 and £300 for “time and trouble”, and it can award £25 for each month there is a delay in service.
The managing agent’s complaints guidance states that it operates a two stage complaint procedure where it will respond to the complaint at stage one. It states that the landlord will respond to the stage two complaint. It states that it will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy, at the time of the resident’s complaint, operated a three stage complaints procedure: stage one, stage one review, and stage two (chief executive stage).
The landlord’s complaints policy stated that stage one and ‘stage one review’ complaint responses will be acknowledged within 3 working days and a formal response sent within 21 calendar days for a stage one complaint, and 10 working days for a stage one ‘review’. At stage two, a response will be sent within 28 working days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the building.

As set out above, this investigation has not considered the roof works completed in 2009, and how these works may or may not relate to the later reported roof leaks. However, this investigation has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s report that his roof was leaking, when he raised the matter in October 2020. This includes consideration of how the landlord acted in relation to its repair responsibilities, as the freeholder of the building.
. The landlord stated that it should have responded to the resident’s report of the leaking roof when he made it in April 2020 (evidence of this report was not available for this investigation). The repair log shows that it categorised a later roof repair as ‘urgent’ and told the resident it would repair it within seven days. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would therefore have treated the reported leak from April 2020 in the same way. However, the leak was not attended to until December 2020. Considering the one month the landlord said it took to complete the repair, this was a seven month delay in service. The delay led to the resident experiencing a prolonged period of distress, which should have been resolved sooner.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response acknowledged failings in its handling of repairs to the roof, and said that it completed the repair to the roof in December 2020.The repair log provided for this investigation does not contain any information about a roof repair in December 2020. However, the resident has not disputed the landlord’s claim that it carried out a repair in December 2020, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that it did. It would also therefore be reasonable to expect details of the repair to be detailed within its repair log for the resident’s property.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations, and in the management and monitoring of outstanding repairs. It is not clear how the landlord reached its position about the roof repair and the associated delay in this case given the absence of information in repair records. This is evidence of poor record keeping on the part of the landlord in relation to this matter.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s compensation guidelines state that it should offer £25 for each month there is a delay in service. In its stage two response, the landlord offered £150 for the delay to the roof repair. However, it would have been reasonable for it to consider offering £175 for the delay in fixing the roof leak, given the guidelines in the policy. It also offered £50 for the time and trouble the resident experienced in pursuing the matter. However, its compensation guidelines state that the amount it should award for time and trouble starts at £100.
The landlord offered an amount lower than set out in its compensation guidelines, but there is no record of why it used its discretion to limit the amount of compensation offered. It would have been reasonable for it to have explained to the resident why it had offered a figure lower than set out in its guidelines. The landlord’s offer of compensation failed to fully put things right for the resident. The landlord also failed to acknowledge what it had learnt from its admitting failings in relation to its handling of the roof repair.
At the time the landlord issued its stage two complaint response, it was reasonably of the view that it had resolved the leak in the roof, as the resident did not report it again until after it had issued it response. The resident then told the landlord that the roof was leaking again on 22 January 2022. The repair log provided for this investigation only details one repair to the roof, on 16 February 2022. There is no evidence that the January report was logged at the time. This was inappropriate and a further failing in record keeping as well as responsiveness to the repairs reported by the resident. There is also no evidence that the repair was attended to within a reasonable period of time, as the next reported attendance at the property for a leak was 22 February, outside of the timeframe for urgent repairs and just outside the timeframe for routine repairs (20 working days).
Given that the landlord gave an “urgent” status to a leak in February, possibly the same leak, it is reasonable to conclude that the January report should have been attended to as an urgent repair, and the landlord failed to do this. The landlord then logged a leak, possibly the same leak, on 22 February 2022 as an “urgent” repair, which under its policy requires a 24 hour attendance. However, the repair was booked for seven days time, outside of the timescale prescribed in the policy. This is evidence of a further failing in the landlord’s response to the reported repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of workmanship provided by the landlord.

The resident reported to the landlord that he was dissatisfied with the quality of works on 21 October 2020. The landlord attended the resident’s property to rectify issues he had identified with its workmanship. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances as the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concern and sought to put it right.
In a follow up email on 8 December 2020, the resident said he was also dissatisfied with the workmanship of the works done to the roof, in 2009. The landlord told the resident that it would not investigate the quality of the workmanship from 2009. This was reasonable in the circumstances, given the amount of time that has passed since the work was completed. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations about what matters it would look into and seek to put right, and what matters it considered outside of the timeframe within which they could be raised.
The landlord also used its complaint responses to manage the resident’s expectations further, in relation to this matter. It advised that the concern about the standard of workmanship had not been brought to it within 12 months and as such, it would not consider the matters, as part of its complaint response. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, given the amount of time that had passed. The landlord also advised the resident that he could challenge the quality of the works, in how it related to the charges, through the FTT. This again was reasonable, as it outlined its final position on the matter, and explained other avenues of redress he could explore.
Despite a concern about the quality of the more recent works (2018) being raised outside of 12 months, the landlord still attended to put it right. This was evidence of good practice by the landlord in relation to its handling of the matter. In line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles the landlord sought to ‘put things right’ when it identified its service had fallen below the standard expected. There was no maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports about the standard of workmanship provided by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The managing agent issued responses to the resident’s stage one complaint and issued a stage one “follow up” response. The landlord issued the stage two complaint response. The complaint procedure that the managing agent used to respond to the stage one complaint was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states the stage one complaints should receive a response within 10 working days.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 December 2020 with a letter that was titled “stage one complaint”. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 December 2020 and told him that he could not reopen his “final account” challenge, and he would need to take his concern to the FTT. While this was reasonable for some aspects of what the resident was dissatisfied with, there were aspects of the resident’s concerns that could reasonably been dealt with as a complaint. Namely his concern about a leaking roof, and the advice he had been given by one of its operatives. The Code states that a complaint is an “expression of dissatisfaction” however made. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge and open a stage one complaint at this time was a failing, the result was an inconvenience to the resident and an unfair and difficult to access complaints procedure.
The Code states that “if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation must be provided to the resident. Setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman”. The landlord’s email of 24 December 2020 did not explain why it had not opened a complaint, and did not explain the resident’s right to take the matter to the Ombudsman. This was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident had clearly said he was making a complaint, and the landlord failed to explain why it was refusing to open one. This increased the detriment to the resident. Not only did the landlord operate an unfair and difficult to access procedure, but it failed to notify the resident how he could challenge that decision, by having the Ombudsman consider it.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 21 May 2021, 106 working days after it was made. This was 96 days later than the timeframes set out in the Code. This was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling, as it unreasonably delayed responding the resident’s complaint. The result was an inconvenience to the resident, as he had to wait a significant amount of time for the landlord to respond to his concerns.
This Service has seen no evidence of correspondence between 24 December 2020 and 21 May 2021, when it issued its stage one complaint response. This indicates that the landlord did not communicate with the resident about the complaint or why it had changed its position and decided to issue a formal complaint response. This is evidence of a protracted and confusing process for the resident, as the landlord’s communication throughout the process was limited. There was also a failure in the landlord’s record keeping, as its complaint response referred to an email it had received from the resident on 4 May 2021, but records of this email were not provided for this investigation.
The landlord’s complaint response of 21 May 2021 said that the resident’s complaint sat outside of its complaint procedure, as it related to service charge amounts and reasonableness of works. For the aspects of the resident’s complaint that related to such matters, this was a reasonable approach. However, it failed to acknowledge that the resident had raised a concern about repairs to his roof and the quality of the landlord’s service more generally. Again some of these related to old works, which it did not reasonably need to address. But, it had also completed recent repairs on the resident’s roof and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to his concerns through the complaints process. This was a failing in its complaint handling and resulted in further inconvenience to the resident, as parts of his complaint that could have been dealt with as a complaint, were not.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response stated that it had not contacted the resident to discuss his complaint, as it already had a full picture of his concerns. This was poor complaint handling practice, and not compliant with the Code. The Code states that a resident must be given a “fair chance to set out their position”. The resulting detriment to the resident was clear, as he expressed to the landlord that he felt the process had been unfair due to the fact it had not contacted him to discuss his concerns. In what had already been a difficult to access process, the landlord’s failure to contact the resident increased the unfairness of its complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage one and stage one ‘follow up’ complaint responses, on 21 May and 18 June 2021 respectively, did not address the resident’s concern about the repairs to his roof. The landlord did not address how it had dealt with or planned to deal with the concerns the resident had about his roof leaking. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it could not investigate matters dating back to 2009, but it failed to address the matter at hand, an alleged defective roof that resulted in “water ingress”. The landlord failed to acknowledge that the resident was making a complaint about its handling of repairs to his roof and its responsibilities to maintain the fabric of the building. Its decision not to address this in its complaint response was inappropriate, and a failure to consider the aspects of the resident’s complaint it could and should have considered.
The management company’s complaints procedure had two stages, the second of which was dealt with by the landlord. After the resident told it that he was dissatisfied with its stage one complaint response, the landlord issued a stage one “follow up” response. This was in line with the landlord’s corporate complaints procedure at the time, but was not in line with the Code, or the managing agent’s complaints procedure. The result was an unnecessarily protracted procedure, which the Code states must not be “unduly long”. This was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. It is noted that the landlord has since changed its complaints procedure, and it now only has two stages.
This Service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord sent the resident acknowledgments of his complaints. This was a failure to comply with its complaints procedure and the Code. The landlord’s complaint procedure, at the time, stated that it should acknowledge complaints within three working days. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaints led to an inconvenience to the resident, as it failed to manage his expectations that it was taking his complaint seriously and investigating it.
The resident told the landlord that he was dissatisfied with its stage one “follow up” response on 5 July 2021. It did not issue its stage two complaint response until 23 December 2021, 123 days working days after he asked it to escalate his complaint to stage two. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its own complaints procedure and the Code. The result was further inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident, in what had already been a protracted process. The 123 working day delay, from the resident’s escalation request, was a failing in itself. In total there were 258 working days, more than a year, between the resident’s first complaint of 17 December 2020 and the landlord final complaint response of 23 December 2021.This was a significant delay and a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
There was a lengthy delay in responding to the resident’s stage two complaint, and the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the delay. The Code states that if the landlord is unable to respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days and “an extension beyond 10 working days is required[…]this should be agreed by both parties”. The Service has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord sought to explain the delay, or agree an extension of when it hoped to respond. The result was inconvenience to the resident, as he was unclear on when the landlord hoped to respond to his complaint.
The landlord offered the resident £75 for the delay in issuing its stage two complaint response. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it can award £25 for each month there is a delay in service. The resident told it that he wanted to escalate his complaint on 5 July 2021, the landlord should therefore have issued its stage two complaint response on 2 August 2021. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response close to 5 months after this date, on 23 December 2021. The landlord’s offer of £75 was equivalent to recognising only a three month delay when applying the landlord’s compensation guidance. The landlord therefore failed to appropriately acknowledge the delay experienced by the resident and to reasonably apply its compensation guidance.
The landlord’s complaint response failed to acknowledge that it should have started the complaints process much earlier, and therefore did not offer compensation to reflect the longer delay. Its compensation guidance states that it can offer between £100 and £300 for time and trouble. Its stage two complaint response failed to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident experienced in asking it to respond to his complaint, for which it would have been reasonable to offer compensation. Its stage two complaint response also failed to acknowledge what learning it had done, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, from its admitted failings in its complaint handling. Its offer of £75 for its admitted failings in its complaint handling did not fully put things right for the resident.
There were numerous failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which adversely affected the resident. The complaints process was protracted and difficult to access for the resident. However, the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations about service charges, charges for major works and his ability to challenge those aspects of his complaint through the FTT. The landlord’s position about those aspects of the resident’s complaint were consistent throughout.
The wording the landlord used to offer compensation and to explain the delay in its final response was exactly the same as in other complaint responses it issued around this time. It is noted that the landlord also offered £75 in compensation in other complaints considered around this time, where there were delays in providing a stage two response. It is noted that this sum was offered for differing periods of delay. This indicates that, rather than giving due consideration to its compensation guidance and the individual circumstances of the complaint, the landlord may have fettered its discretion. It used a standard wording and applied a set level of compensation for delays at stage two in several complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs to the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of workmanship provided by the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the building in 2009 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the level and reasonableness of service and major works charges are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to repair the roof in line with the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. Its record keeping in relation to the roof repairs was poor, and the resident experienced distress, time and trouble for the delays in repairing the roof. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident and it failed to identify what learning it had done in relation to its admitting failings in its handling of the matter.
The landlord sought to put right concerns raised about the quality of its workmanship. It managed the resident’s expectations about what it would and would not look into, and maintained a consistent position in relation to the matter. It gave the resident information on alternative avenues of redress, if he remained dissatisfied with its final position.
The landlord unreasonably delayed starting the complaints process, which led to a hard to access procedure for the resident. It failed to acknowledge his complaints and give timeframes within which it would respond. There were delays at each stage of the complaints process, and the landlord failed to acknowledge what learning it had done from its poor complaint handling. Its offer of compensation did not fully put it right for the resident.
The landlord’s record keeping in relation to repairs was poor. The evidence available suggests that repairs which were reported and attended to were not recorded on its repair log. The repair log provided for this investigation only contains one record of a roof repair during his tenancy, but it is accepted that the landlord completed multiple repairs to the resident’s roof.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified within it;
2. Pay the resident £1,025 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £200 it offered for its handling of repairs to the roof of the building (if it has not already done so);
  2. A further £250 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of repairs to the roof of the building;
  3. The £75 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so);
  4. A further £500 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its handling of repairs to the roof of the building, and identify points of learning and improvement with a particular focus on its repairs record keeping. The landlord must share the outcome of this review with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks.
2. Review its complaint handling in this case, and identify points of learning with a particular focus on:
  1. Its communication with residents;
  2. When complaint handling staff should open a formal complaint;
  3. The handling of complaints between the landlord and its managing agent;
3. The landlord must share the outcome of this review with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks.