London Borough of Brent (202124195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124195

London Borough of Brent

3 October 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling repairs at the property, including:
1. The roof and guttering issues reported between June 2021 and February 2022.
2. The drain and holes in the driveway identified in July 2021.
3. The leak reported in August 2022.
4. His driveway service request of September 2022.
5. Window repairs.
6. Brickwork repairs
7. Service charges for repair work.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

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.
After carefully considering the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, complaints 1e, 1f and 1g are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42(a) sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

Window repairs

It is acknowledged that the resident has concerns about the landlord’s handling of window repairs. He raised queries with the landlord in June, September and October 2021 about window repairs and concerns some windows at his property were rotten. The landlord considered a bathroom repair completed to the resident’s property as part of its stage 1 complaint response in July 2021. However there is no evidence that the resident’s concerns about the windows were dealt with as a formal complaint, and were considered by the landlord at either stage 1 or 2 of its complaints procedure. As such this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.
If the resident remains dissatisfied or concerned about the windows and the associated repairs, he may wish to raise these with the landlord now. This would allow the landlord the opportunity to first respond to this matter through its internal complaints procedure.

Brickwork repairs

The resident told this service that he wanted the landlord to fill holes and repoint brickwork at the property. Records show the resident raised reports that brickwork needed to be repointed in May and July 2021. However, there is no evidence the resident raised a specific complaint about the landlord’s handling of this.
It is noted that an airbrick has been identified to be contributing to the leak the resident reported in August 2022. As such, this has been considered as part of the investigation of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of that leak report. However, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, other concerns about brickwork aspect are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Service charges for repair work

The resident has advised that the service charge statement he received from the landlord in September 2023 billed him for work he disputed had been completed. He has since raised this concern with the landlord. While some details about this have been included in the report for context, as the resident is yet to receive a response from the landlord about this issue in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, his concern about items on the service charge statement is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
However, a recommendation has been made that the landlord respond to this concern and that it provide evidence of work completed to the resident. Should the resident remain unhappy with the landlord’s response he may refer the matter back to this service after exhausting the complaints procedure.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a first floor flat he purchased in February 2021. The building contains 3 flats and the landlord is the freeholder.
The resident lives in the property with his family. The resident has informed this service that one of his children has severe allergies and is listed as vulnerable with various services.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Under the lease agreement, the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and the building including:
1. The roof.
2. The exterior walls.
3. Drains, gutters and external pipes.
The landlord’s responsive repairs manual sets out the timescales for responding to repair reports. This states that:
1. Emergency repairs – such as severe leaks, electrical failure, structural collapse – will be attended and made safe within 2 hours and rectified within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs – will be booked by appointment at the resident’s convenience within 28 calendar days and will be completed within an average of 10 working days.
The responsive repairs manual also sets out the compensation to be paid when appointments are missed by the landlord. It says that a payment of £10 will be made to the resident if the landlord’s contractor fails to attend an appointment at the allotted time.
Under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act a landlord is required to consult with a leaseholder before undertaking any work which will cost any leaseholder more than £250. This includes repairs, maintenance and improvements.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. This states that:
1. Stage 1 complaint responses would be provided within 20 workings days.
2. Stage 2 complaint responses would be provided within 30 working days.

Summary of events

On 16 June 2021 the landlord recorded a repair report by the resident. At this time he said that guttering at the front of the property was blocked. The landlord recorded that its roofing contractor inspected the property on 17 June 2021 and recommended the following work:
1. Renew a defective union.
2. Align a section of guttering at the front of the property.
3. Clear all gutters and the downpipe at the front.
On 22 June 2021 the resident complained to the landlord. He said:
1. There had been a delay with the landlord processing the notice to transfer after he purchased the property.
2. During this time the landlord had refused to communicate with him and respond to queries he raised about communal repairs.
3. He had raised queries about repairs included roof and guttering and window repairs.
4. He wished to know what outstanding repairs were logged with the landlord.
The landlord’s records note that on 24 June 2021 its repairs contractor sent an email about work identified following its attendance on 17 June 2021. The repairs contractor stated that guttering and a downpipe needed to be renewed to the front of the property and that a section 20 consultation may be required.
On 5 July 2021 the resident reported blocked guttering to the landlord again. The landlord noted the resident had requested a mesh be fitted to the guttering to avoid continuous call outs because of blockage by leaves.
On 7 July 2021 the landlord noted in a pest control report that treatment was carried out in respect of rats in the communal driveway at the property. It found the interceptor cap on the drain to be missing. The report recommended that:
1. The drain in the communal driveway be unblocked.
2. The interceptor cap be replaced.
3. The burrow holes in the driveway be repaired.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 30 July 2021. It said it needed to communicate through the resident’s appointed solicitor until the notice to transfer had been processed. However, the landlord said it should have explained this to the resident after he made contact. It apologised that this did not happen. The landlord also noted that it had responded to previous correspondence from the resident outside its 10 working days service standard.
The landlord said:
1. A work order had been raised for roof and guttering repairs reported on 5 July 2021. It said all communal repairs should be completed within 14 days.
2. A repair had been completed to the resident’s bathroom window on 7 July 2021.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the delays in the service he had received and offered him compensation of £150. It said:
1. It would follow up on the issues the resident experienced by arranging for a home ownership manager to contact him.
2. It would use feedback from him to inform the service offered to leaseholders.
3. A member of its staff would also continue to monitor outstanding repairs to ensure they were completed as promised.
On 1 September 2021 the landlord recorded that it had booked an appointment with the resident to complete guttering repairs raised on 5 July 2021. However, that day it noted the operative attending was unable to complete the work due to not having the necessary equipment. The landlord recorded the resident was very unhappy as it had been a “waste of a day” for him.
On 23 September 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It said its surveyor had attended the resident’s property following his request. Amongst other things it noted:
1. The resident had said a repair was needed to the driveway drain, which had been recommended by the pest control team.
2. The guttering blockage/leak had been reported 10 times by the resident since February 2021, but this was now fixed.
The landlord told the resident at this time that it would update him again once it had made further progress.
The landlord’s records show that the repair raised on 5 July 2021 was completed on 28 September 2021 when gutter hedgehogs (a brush tool to keep gutters clear) were installed at the property.
On 28 October 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord questioning what was happening about driveway repairs following the pest control report.
On 3 November 2021 the landlord’s records show it raised a follow on repair from pest control for the drain in the communal driveway to be unblocked and the interceptor cap replaced.
On 6 December 2021 the landlord sent a message to its repairs contractor. At this time it said the resident was chasing the repair raised on 16 June 2021, as work had yet to be completed. The landlord noted that it had previously recorded this work was to be completed by its planned work team.
On 31 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to request that this complaint be escalated. He said a tile from the roof had fallen off the roof that day and nearly hit his son. The resident said the issues with the roof dated back to his original complaint. He said he had submitted a number of reports about this since then and that nothing had been done by the landlord.
The landlord’s records noted it attended the repair raised to unblock drain and replace the interceptor cap in the communal driveway on 1 February 2022. It noted at this time that it had completed a line clean and had tested this.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord raised a repair for the resident’s roof. On 15 and 20 February 2022 the resident sent further emails to the landlord. He said:
1. He was experiencing leaks in the kitchen ceiling and into his son’s bedroom due to ongoing roofing issues.
2. He wanted more urgent help with the roof/gutter repair as water damage to the ceiling in the kitchen was spreading and more rain was forecast.
3. He was also experiencing rainwater coming through the bathroom extractor fan. He attached a video showing this leak.
4. He was still waiting for the drive at the property to be repaired since rats had made a nest in the drain due to a missing interceptor cap.
On 24 February 2022 the landlord raised a repair to fill burrow holes created by rats. Although an appointment was booked for 8 March 2022, no further information was recorded.
On 1 March 2022 the landlord raised a recall job for the drain in the communal driveway to be unblocked and an interceptor cap replaced.
The landlord’s records show on 3 March 2022 it:
1. Cleared the gutters, outlets and downpipes.
2. Identified three leaks:
  1. One caused by decaying mastic where felt dormer roof met roof slates and repairs were completed to this.
  2. Two leaks caused by missing and cracked slate which were renewed.
On 8 March 2022 the resident sent a further email to the landlord. He said he was “sick and tired with being messed around” by the landlord. He said he had wasted 3 working days in the last week waiting at home for the landlord to attend to unblock the drain and fix the interceptor cap in the driveway. He said that a contractor had attended that morning and but they had been the incorrect tradesperson for the repair.
On 9 March 2022 the landlord noted it spoke the resident who said that:
1. Engineers had failed to attend earlier that month to complete work to fix holes in the driveway.
2. Gutters, roof and the downpipes had now been fixed by the repairs contractor. Some tiles were still missing but there were no roof leaks.
On 10 March 2022 the landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s complaint. In this it said:
1. It had spoken to the resident by telephone the previous day and that he had confirmed his roof, guttering and downpipe had been fixed and that he was “comfortable” with the repairs completed.
2. It wished to apologise to the resident for the time the matter had been outstanding and the unnecessary time and trouble he had expended pursuing a resolution.
3. It was clear there had been a number of failings and that issues with contractors had caused further delays. It said it would arrange payment of an additional £200 in compensation for the delays in carrying out repairs.
4. It was pleased that repairs had now been completed to the roof and guttering at the property. It asked that the resident contact its housing management service if any issues arose from this work.
5. It also acknowledged that:
  1. Appointments to fix the drain had been missed.
  2. A tradesman attended to fill holes in the driveway had been misinformed about the nature of the work needed.
6. It would liaise with its housing management service to progress the repairs to the resident’s drains and filling holes in the driveway.
On 16 March 2022 the landlord raised a repair order to fill burrow holes in the driveway. Records noted an appointment was booked for the morning of 22 March 2022. However the landlord recorded this was missed due to no operative or contractor being allocated to the work. Later that day the landlord recorded it had spoken to the resident who said that the drains in the driveway also needed to be unblocked. At this time the landlord told the resident no previous job to unblock the drains had been booked.
Also on 22 March 2022 the resident contacted this service. He said that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs. He said he had been told by the landlord 3 times that someone would attend to complete repairs to the driveway and that each time the contractor had failed to show up.
Later on 22 March 2022 the landlord raised a work order for the drains to be unblocked. It recorded that its contractor was to attend that afternoon. Work was recorded as complete on 28 March 2022.
On 13 April 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord. He said contractors had attended to clear the drains and fill the holes in the driveway but that rats had since made a further hole into the tarmac as the interceptor cap had not been replaced. In internal emails that day the landlord noted it had not been specific enough about the work required following the complaint response.
On 13 April 2022 the landlord raised a work order to install an interceptor cap to the drain in the driveway. It recorded this work was completed the following day. On 21 April 2022 it raised a work order to fill remaining burrow holes and make good the cement around a manhole in the driveway. It recorded that an appointment was booked for 9 May 2022 and that work was completed that day.
On 31 August 2022 the landlord raised a further repair, noting the resident had reported a blocked guttering causing a leak into his extractor fan. The landlord later recorded that an appointment had been booked for 10 October 2022 and that work would be carried out using rope access.
On 11 September 2022 the resident raised a service request to the landlord about the general state of the driveway. Repair records note the resident said the driveway was a “hazard”, that “tarmac was crumbling in many places” and that there were “multiple divets” in the driveway.
The landlord responded on 21 September 2022 advising that a surveyor would attend the following day to assess the driveway. The resident later informed the landlord that no-one had attended that day.
On 28 September 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. He said:
1. The problem he had with the roof and gutter persisted.
2. Water entered the bathroom through the extractor when there was heavy rain.
3. He had chased the landlord and the contractor but had been given no date to fix the issue. He said he was finding this “incredibly frustrating”.
Repair records do not record details of work completed by rope access on 10 October 2022. However, the landlord has since sent this service the contractor’s report of attendance that day. This noted:
1. The gutter and downpipe was blocked with debris and water was running down the wall.
2. Technicians cleaned the gutters and downpipe and water–tested.
3. The gully and gutter were sealed with an additional lead piece.
Also on 10 October 2022 the landlord’s surveyor attended the property to check roof work and quote for renewal of the driveway. This attendance was not recorded in the repair records. However the landlord has since sent this service a record of the surveyor’s record of the visit, which noted:
1. an asbestos check was needed.
2. a brick needed to be filled on the first floor.
3. rear gutters needed clearing.
4. Work was currently being completed to the roof by rope access.
On 27 October 2022 the landlord recorded in repair records that it had been recalled as the leak into the property through the airbrick had become worse. It noted a scaffolding tower was needed to complete the work.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint of 28 September 2022. It apologised for its late response to the complaint and said:
1. After asbestos was removed, roof work would start.
2. An appointment was booked for the contractor to attend on 16 November 2022 and it would inform the resident of any follow-on work needed.
3. It had reminded staff to maintain regular contact and take timely action to ensure work was completed within a reasonable timescale.
The resident responded to the landlord on 6 November 2022 requesting escalation of his complaint. He said:
1. “Basic” repairs had been completed “without due care”, causing residents “years of headache and anxiety”.
2. After a year of leaking guttering and roof he was still “at square one”.
3. He was still waiting for an update about driveway repairs.
The landlord noted a further surveyor attendance at the property on 23 November 2022. It recorded that a scaffolding tower was needed to address 2 areas – an air brick, and lead flashing and soakers (parts of the roof) that may require work. Repair records do not detail this inspection, or what work was completed following this. On 5 December 2022 an asbestos survey was complete. This found no asbestos.
On 16 December 2022 the landlord issued a further stage 2 response to the resident. It said:
1. It had identified that an asbestos survey was needed of the property adjoining the resident’s own prior to starting roof work. It said that, as this had now been completed, roof work could proceed.
2. The resident had informed one of its complaints officers on 17 August 2022 of the return of the leak. It said its housing management service had booked multiple appointments for the roof repairs, but had:
  1. Missed appointments.
  2. Failed to arrange access to the roof.
  3. Failed to progress the asbestos survey which was needed prior to repair work.
3. Its housing management service had now booked for roofers to attend 20 December 2022 to proceed with the roof repairs.
4. In respect of the driveway, the landlord said an initial appointment for a surveyor to attend had been missed. The surveyor who inspected the drive in October 2022 said the driveway was at the end of its life, and that a work order would be raised to renew the driveway. The work towards this had not been progressed, but would now be forwarded to its leasehold team for a section 20 notice to be issued.
5. It wished to apologise for the delays in progressing repairs to the resident’s property. It acknowledged a number of missed appointment, and appointments when the contractors had attended without the correct equipment.
6. Its investigation had highlighted a failure of communication between its housing management service and its contractors.
7. It would ask its housing management service to review current procedure in place for communication, particularly when a repair needed input from different specialists (such as roofers and scaffolders).
8. Where there had been a failing, its housing management service should prioritise notifying the resident and allocate an officer to oversee all aspects of work through to completion.
9. It acknowledged failings in communicating with the resident. It said it had arranged for a member of staff (Ms M) to be point of contact for the resident to contact for updates in relation to the work.
10. It acknowledged the time spent by the resident chasing officers, the time missed from work, and inconvenience caused to him. It said that in recognition of this it had arranged for a further compensation payment of £350 to be made to him.
The landlord’s records show an appointment was booked for 20 December 2022. However, the records do not detail the outcome of this or any work was completed at this time.
On 8 January 2023 the resident sent an email to Ms M. He said there had been heavy rain and water was still coming through his extractor fan. He also asked for an update on driveway work. Ms M responding to the resident on 16 January 2023. She said she had arranged an inspection of the property.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord’s surveyor detailed an inspection of the property along with contractors. The surveyor noted:
1. He had inspected windows at the property.
2. The contractor said that roof repairs, including areas around the chimney, had been “issued to rope access”.
3. Realignment of the gutter and renewal of an airbrick above the resident’s bathroom was still needed as rainwater appeared to be spilling down the wall.
4. He had asked that rainwater goods, roof repairs and air brick renewal be covered by a section 20 notice.
On 26 January 2023 the resident contacted Ms M. He said he was told the driveway would be going through section 20 consultation but had heard nothing about this.
The resident contacted Ms M again on 8 February 2023. He said he was still waiting for news about the driveway and roof issues. He said the driveway was dangerous and his son could not “have damp in his bedroom as he has serious allergies”. Ms M responded the same day saying she would check on the status of work.
The landlord’s records show it raised a joint inspection of the property in respect of the leak from roof area on 2 February 2023 but the records do not detail any attendance.
On 16 February 2023 Ms M sent an email to the resident. She said:
1. The scope of the work for driveway renewal had been sent to its contractor so a section 20 notice could be served.
2. She was chasing information about the roof and would let the resident know the position soon.
The resident responded the same day. He said he had received a scope of external work from the landlord but that his did not include driveway renewal. He attached a report of external work to be completed (including roof, window replacement and brickwork) which was dated 9 February 2022. The resident said he was due to meet with the landlord on 21 February 2023 for pre-consultation about the external work.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord’s surveyor stated internally that:
1. Roof repairs had not been wholly carried out and were to be included in a programme of works, which included window replacement and brickwork repairs.
2. He assumed there was no further work for the landlord’s responsive team and that the planned work team and Ms M would communicate with the resident.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord issued a section 20 notice to the resident in respect of work to take up and re-lay the driveway. This notice said the work was required as the area had started to lift and was a “trip hazard”.
On 22 March 2023 the landlord’s repair manager noted internally that the driveway work was not necessary to the extent expected by the resident. They said, budget advice now was to only carry out work of this nature for immediate health and safety reasons. Otherwise, it should wait for cyclical programmes. This decision was not shared with the resident at this time.
The resident contacted Ms M again on 24 March 2023. He said he was still getting “a lot of rain water” entering the property through the airbrick. He said:
1. the driveway was “a messy muddy state”.
2. He understood there was a process with section 20 notices, but it was nearly a year since he reported the issues with the roof and asked if it could be prioritised.
Ms M responded on 27 March 2023. She said she would inform the surveyor of the water penetration through the airbrick and would ask for the work to be prioritised. She also informed the resident that the landlord did not plan to go ahead with renewal of the driveway for reasons outlined by the repairs manager. The resident responded that day expressing confusion about this decision. He asked whether the repairs manager had inspected the driveway.
On 12 June 2023 the resident informed the landlord that rats had begun to burrow holes in the driveway again. The landlord responded the following day stating it had forwarded the resident’s email to a team that could address the rodent issue. In response the resident questioned whether the landlord still considered work to the driveway to be unnecessary.
On 22 June 2023 Ms M queried internally when the section 20 notice would be issued in respect of roof work (and other work, which included window replacement). The landlord’s planned work team responded on 29 June 2023 stating that it was waiting for an updated scope of work from its contractor. It said it would progress with issuing the section 20 notice by the end of the week.
On 27 June 2023 the resident updated the landlord that pest control had attended the rodent issue in driveway. He said that the interceptor cap was again broken. He also questioned what would be done about the holes in the driveway.
The landlord’s pest control attended the property on 11 July 2023. The report of this visit noted there was damage to the pipe around the interceptor cap.
On 13 September 2023 the landlord’s planned works team stated internally that a pre-section 20 consultation meeting had been held 21 February 2023. It said that since that date it had obtained window quotes and had sought clarification around planning permission.
On 15 September 2023 the landlord sent the resident a section 20 notice. This included work to replace windows, brickwork and concrete repairs and roof repairs.
The resident told this service that he believed the crumbling driveway was contributing to the pest problem. He said he considered this to be a health and safety issue. He said he felt the landlord had ignored these concerns.

Assessment and findings

The roof and guttering issues reported between June 2021 and February 2022

The resident reported issues with the guttering at the property on 16 June 2021.The landlord’s inspection the following day was within the target response time for such a report. It recorded at this time issues that needed to be remedied such as aligning a section of guttering and clearing all gutters and the downpipe. While the landlord’s record show subsequent contact with its repairs contractor about the extent of work identified, there is no record of what work was completed.
Later records note that the resident had been in contact on 6 December 2021 stating that this work was still outstanding. The landlord noted at this time that it had previously recorded that its planned work team were completing this work. But there is no evidence that the landlord resolved whether or not the work had been completed. That was poor, particularly as it had been outstanding since June 2021 and the resident was chasing progress. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to establish what work had been completed. If it had not gone ahead for any reason, the landlord should have communicated this to the resident. The landlord’s failure to do either was poor.
It appears that some work was completed to the guttering between June and September 2021. The surveyor that attended the property in September 2021 noted that the resident said that guttering problems/leaks had been fixed. However, because of poor record keeping by the landlord the extent of work completed to remedy issues identified with the guttering in June 2021 is unclear.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations, including the management and monitoring of outstanding repairs. In light of this, a recommendation has been made that the landlord review the current scope of works for the property to ensure that any issues identified on 17 June 2021 will be remedied by this work. An order has also been made that the landlord reviews its repair record keeping, specifically its processes for maintaining records to ensure repairs completed are appropriately recorded.
Further evidence of the landlord’s poor management of guttering repairs is seen in the report raised by the resident on 5 July 2021. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response of 30 July 2021 that this work should be completed in 14 days. It also said it would monitor the outstanding repair to ensure it was completed as promised. But by 1 September 2021 the resident was still waiting for the repair. The landlord failed to ensure the repair was completed as promised. That the landlord’s operative attended without necessary equipment delay matters further. The resident said it was a waste of a day for him. It caused him inconvenience. The landlord should have ensured its operative was properly equipped to complete the work.
This work was not completed until 28 September 2021, nearly 3 months after the resident’s report – well outside the landlord’s target of 10 working days for such repairs. It was poor, particularly as the landlord told the resident in its complaint response the repair should be completed within 14 days and that it would monitor this repair. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of guttering repairs.
When the resident requested that his complaint to be escalated on 31 January 2022 he said that a tile had fallen from the roof nearly hitting his son. It is not clear why a roof repair was not raised until 2 weeks later. It would have been reasonable for the landlord raise an emergency repair after receiving the resident’s email on 31 January 2022 to ensure the area was safe. Follow-on work could then have been booked accordingly.
The landlord attended to complete repairs on 2 March 2022. At this time it cleared guttering and carried out some repairs to the roof. This work was completed outside the landlord’s 10 working day target for such work. It was also just outside it 28–day timescale noted for making such appointment. However, overall, the 31 days the landlord took to respond to this report was not so delayed as to be unreasonable. It is acknowledged that given the delays the resident had already experienced by this time, this would have compounded his frustration with the situation.
During the course of responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2, in March 2022, the landlord spoke to him to confirm roof and guttering repairs had been completed satisfactorily. It is acknowledged by this service that the resident subsequently experienced further issues with the roof and guttering. However, it appears from the landlord’s record of its conversation with the resident on 9 March 2022 that work completed on 2 March 2022 had resolved the leak at this time. This service considers that the steps the landlord took to resolve the roof issues reported in January and February 2022 were reasonable.
The landlord offered the resident £200 for the delays in carrying out repairs. It is unclear what portion of this related to the repairs to the roof and guttering and what related to the issues experienced with the delays to driveway repairs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided a breakdown, so that the factors that it had taken into consideration when making its offer were clear. The landlord had also previously awarded the resident £150 at stage 1, however it would appear this award was primarily made to remedy issues the resident had experienced communicating with the landlord following his purchase of the property.
Overall, the previous awards made by the landlord do not sufficiently acknowledge the inconvenience, and the time and trouble, caused by its poor handling of repairs to the guttering.
It is apparent that the resident was still chasing guttering work he considered was outstanding in December 2021. The landlord’s failure to make adequate records of what work had been completed meant it was not able to advise the resident whether work was still outstanding.
The resident also had to wait nearly 3 months for the landlord to complete work following his report on 5 July 2021. He was caused inconvenience when the landlord’s operative attended an earlier appointment without adequate equipment. With consideration to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and the circumstances, an order of a further award has been made to reflect the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident.

The blocked drain and holes in the driveway identified in July 2021

The landlord’s pest control reports of July 2021 set out that work was to be completed to unblock a drain, replace the interceptor cap and repair burrow holes in the driveway. Despite noting on 23 September 2021 that the resident said this repair was outstanding, the landlord did not raise a repair until 3 November 2021. That was poor. It is possible that there was a reason for not completing the repair straight away. But if that were the case, then it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate this to the resident. Instead it was left to the resident to chase what was happening on 28 October 2021.
Records show that the landlord did not attend the repair raised on 3 November 2021 until nearly 3 months later, 1 February 2022. That was far outside its target response time. In line with its responsive repairs guidance , the target for completing such a repair was 10 working days. It is unclear why work was delayed and there is no evidence the resident was updated during this time. That was poor. It is also clear that the landlord did not complete work to replace the interceptor cap or fill burrows in the driveway at this time, leading to several further attendances by the landlord. Work was not eventually completed until 9 May 2022.
It is clear that the progress of this repair was delayed by poor communication by the landlord about work that was necessary. It noted on 13 April 2022 that it had not been specific enough about work that was needed. That caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident because of the need to arrange further appointments to complete the work. It is also clear that the landlord missed 3 appointments with the resident during this time. This would undoubtedly have caused the resident additional inconvenience and frustration. It is unsurprising that the resident expressed that he was “sick and tired” of being messed around by the landlord.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs needed to the drain and the driveway. Despite drawing the landlord’s attention to the need for this repair in September 2021, this work was not completed until 8 months later. That was poor. The resident should not have had to wait 8 months for the landlord to complete repairs it had a duty to undertake.
The landlord offered the resident £200 in its stage 2 response to his complaint. As outlined previously, it is not clear how much of this amount is in recognition of the delays in driveway and drain repairs. However, it does not sufficiently recognised the frustration, time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident. With regard to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the circumstances of this case, a further award had been ordered.
In line with the landlord’s responsive repairs manual, the resident should be paid £10 for each missed appointment. A further order has been made in light of this.
It is acknowledged the resident has since questioned whether the landlord had undertaken the work to replace the missing interceptor cap in April 2022. This service notes that while the pest control of July 2023 report noted damage to the pipe around the interceptor cap, it did not say it was missing. The landlord recorded it had replaced the interceptor cap on 14 April 2022. The recent pest control report does not provide evidence that indicates the interceptor cap was missing at the time of this attendance.

The leak reported in August 2022.

The landlord said the resident had told it on 17 August 2022 of the return of a leak through his extractor fan. In line with repair timescales, the resident could reasonably expect the landlord to respond to this within 28 days. It is unclear why it took 2 weeks for the landlord to raise this as a repair. It is acknowledged that it may have taken some time for the landlord to arrange access to the roof/gutter area by rope. But the delay in even raising the repair would inevitably have hampered the landlord in taking timely action to resolve the issue.
It is apparent from the resident’s complaint on 28 September 2021 that the landlord’s delayed response to this issue caused him frustration. That was understandable – it was more than a month since he had reported the return of the leak and he was still awaiting a date for the landlord to attend to issue. He waited nearly 2 months following his report before contractors attended to carry out work. The response was more than 3 weeks outside the landlord’s repair timescales.
Evidence shows that contractors attended to clear and test the gutters and downpipe on 10 October 2022. However, it is apparent this did not resolve the issue as the landlord was recalled on 27 October 2022. Repair records do not adequately detail how it progressed roof repairs. This service has seen records relating its contractors attendance on 10 October 2022 to complete work by rope access and the surveyor’s attendance the same day. But this was not appropriately recorded in repair records. Nor do repair records note the appointment for a contractor to attend on 16 November 2022 (as set out in the stage 1 response), the surveyor’s attendance on 23 November 2022, or what work was completed following this. That is further evidence of inadequate record keeping by the landlord. This can only have impeded the landlord in appropriately progressing the repairs.
It is noted the landlord has acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response of 15 December 2022 that there had been failings in it progression of the roof repairs, through missed appointments, failure to arrange roof access, failure to progress the required asbestos survey. It is noted by this service that the landlord demonstrated some learning from this complaint. It identified that a review was needed of how its housing management service communicated when a repair needed input from different specialists. But the landlord could have gone further by identifying the short-comings in its record keeping. That was a missed opportunity to learn from the complaint.
That lack of appropriate records mean it is also unclear what work the landlord undertook following the surveyor’s inspection on 23 November 2022 and the appointment booked for 20 December 2022. It means that the landlord cannot demonstrate it acted appropriately, and in line with its repair responsibilities, to respond to the resident’s reports of the continued leak.
It is clear however, that the resident’s leak remained unresolved. He reported to Ms M on 8 January 2023 that water was still coming through his extractor fan. While Ms M took steps to arrange for a surveyor to attend, it would have been appropriate for the resident’s report of a continued report of a leak to be detailed in repair records.
The resident had told this service that the issues with water leaking though his extractor fan remain ongoing. It is evident from the surveyor’s note of 17 February 2023 that the landlord had decided outstanding roof work would be included with the external programme of works, which required section 20 consultation.
It is acknowledged section 20 consultations can be lengthy, with quotes obtained, and time allowed for observations to be made. The landlord should, therefore have been aware it would likely be a number of months before it would be in a position to start any roof work under the section 20 notice. The resident told Ms M on 24 March 2023 of the amount of water still entering the property and asked whether work could be prioritised. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether any temporary repair could be completed that might help resolve this issue in the interim. The absence of the landlord’s consideration of this was a failing.
The landlord issued a section 20 notice to the resident on 15 September 2023 covering roof and other external repairs. It is unclear precisely why it took the landlord nearly 7 months to do this following its pre-consultation meeting in February 2023. It is noted the landlord’s planned works team told Ms M at the end of June 2023 that it would issue the notice by the end of the week. If there were reasons why that could not happen, such as the need to clarify planning permission, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to update the resident. That there is no evidence it did so is a further failing. Lack of updates about what was happening to progress section 20 notices, and roof work, would undoubtedly have caused the resident frustration and anxiety.
The landlord had acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there had been failings in its communication with the resident. It provided the resident with a point of contact. Evidence shows that Ms M was mostly responsive to the resident’s request for updates. However, while providing the resident with a point of contact was a positive step it would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree to regularly update the resident about the progress of the work. This might have helped avoid some of the frustration experienced by the resident, which would have been compounded by his earlier frustrations about the lack progress and communication.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak. It failed to take timely action to raise the repair, or to make adequate records of appointments and attendances to complete roof work. It failed to communicate with the resident about progress towards completing roof repairs. In addition, it failed to consider whether any temporary repairs could be completed to resolve the leak issues the resident continued to experience.
The landlord offered the resident £350 in its stage 2 response for the time spent chasing work, missed time from work, and inconvenience caused. It is not clear how much of this relates to roof repair issues, and what to driveway issue. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide a breakdown of how it had reached its figure. This would have demonstrated that it had fully understood how the resident had been affected by each repair, and that it had acted fairly and proportionately in making its offer.
Nevertheless, this service considers it is insufficient amount to adequately recognise the frustration, time and trouble and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the failings identified. The resident has expressed frustration at the lack of action to resolve the leak he continues to experience. He has clearly expended time and trouble over the course of over a year chasing action to resolve the ongoing issues. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and the circumstances, a further award has been ordered.

The driveway service request of September 2022.

The landlord took steps to arrange an inspection following the resident’s request regarding the condition of the driveway. That was appropriate. However, as the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response, it missed the initial appointment on 22 September 2023. While there is record of the surveyor’s attendance on 10 October 2022, this was not recorded within the landlord’s repair records. The information the landlord provided in its stage 2 response – that the surveyor had said the driveway was at the end of its life – is also not contained within records. It is likely the landlord obtained this information from other sources, such as internal emails. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure repair records were adequately updated with relevant information from inspections.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had not progressed work following the inspection of the driveway. It had taken no steps to do so over 2 months after the surveyor’s inspection. That was a failing to appropriately address the service request about the condition of the driveway. The landlord told the resident on 15 December 2022 that it would forward the matter to its leasehold team for a section 20 notice to be issued. However, by 26 January 2023 he was still waiting to hear what was happening.
As outlined above, it is acknowledged that section 20 notices involve a number of stages, and it is possible the landlord still needed to arrange quotes for work. But, if that was the case, it should have informed the resident of this. He received no update about this until 16 February 2023 and that was a failure in communication that would have caused him frustration.
The landlord eventually issued a section 20 notice on 21 February 2023. But it then told the resident on 27 March 2023 that it had decided driveway work was not necessary to the extent he expected. It is acknowledged by this service that landlords need to consider budget advice when making decisions about work to undertake. However, it is also important that landlords appropriately address repair concerns.
It is evident the resident’s concerns about the condition of the driveway remained. He reasonably questioned whether the repair manager had inspected the driveway themselves. But that question appears to have remained unanswered. The landlord had previously told the resident that its surveyor had found the driveway was at the end of its life. The section 20 notice had said the driveway was a trip hazard. In these circumstances, having decided the driveway work was not necessary to the extent expected by the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange a further inspection. That this was not even considered was a failing. It left the resident confused about why the landlord had decided driveway renewal was no longer necessary.
A further inspection would have given the landlord the opportunity to identify and address the concerns the resident had about the driveway, and consider what extent of repairs were appropriate. With this in mind, an order has been made that the landlord arrange a further inspection of the driveway.
The resident subsequently reported the return of pests burrowing holes in the driveway. The landlord appropriately passed the issue of pests to the relevant department for action. However, there is no indication it took any action when the resident queried what it would now do about the holes in the driveway. That was a further failing.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s driveway service request. The landlord failed to progress this following the surveyor’s inspection of October 2022. It then failed to appropriately communicate with the resident about the progress of the section 20 notice. It failed to arrange for a further inspection of the driveway after deciding not to go ahead driveway renewal. This meant it did not address the resident’s reasonable questions and concerns about the condition of the driveway. Further, it failed to take action to address the resident’s reports of new holes in the driveway made by pests.
The landlord’s offer of £350, made for in respect of the failing in progressing driveway and roof repairs, does not provide adequate compensation to the resident for the adverse effect upon the resident of the failings identified. A further award has been ordered to recognise the confusion and frustration caused by the landlord’s failings.
That landlord’s stage 2 responses to the resident were both within timescales outlined in its complaint’s process. However, each of the stage 1 responses was several working days outside the 20 working day target. While the landlord apologised for this on 1 November 2022, it did not do so on 30 July 2021. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise to the resident for the lateness of it response. It is noted also noted that the landlord’s timescales for responding to complaints is not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). A recommendation has been made that the landlord review complaint response timescales to bring them in line with the Code, and that it remind staff to acknowledge and apologise when complaint responses are not within published timescales.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and guttering.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the drain and holes in the driveway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak reported in August 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling the resident’s driveway service request of September 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of window and brickwork repairs and service charges for repair work are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Reasons

The landlord failed to keep accurate records of the repairs completed following the report of a guttering repair in June 2021. It also failed to establish whether work had been completed when the resident chased this in December 2021. The landlord also took nearly 3 months to complete a guttering repair reported in July 2021. This was despite assuring the resident in its complaint response that it would monitor work to ensure it was completed as promised. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble.
The landlord took nearly 8 months to complete drain and driveway repairs. The landlord delayed raising the repair. The completion of the repair was then further delayed by poor communication and missed appointments by the landlord. This caused the resident frustration, time and trouble and inconvenience.
The landlord delayed in raising a repair in respect of the resident’s report of the return of the leak. It failed to adequately progress or record actions towards addressing the leak. It did not keep the resident appropriately updated about progress towards completing necessary work. It did not consider what temporary repairs could be completed to the property in the interim to try to resolve the ongoing leak issue.
The landlord delayed in progressing the resident’s driveway service request following the surveyor’s inspection. It failed to keep the resident updated about the progress of the section 20 notice, and did not appropriately arrange a reinspection of the driveway after deciding not to proceed with work.
The landlord’s stage 1 responses were delayed by several days. While it apologised for this in November 2022, it did not do so on 30 July 2021.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified during this investigation.
2. Make a total payment to the resident of £1,880, made up of:
  1. An additional £200 for the adverse effect upon the resident of its handling of guttering repairs.
  2. An additional £300 for the adverse effect on the resident of its handling of repairs to the drain and driveway.
  3. £30 for the missed appointments by the landlord during drain and driveway repairs.
  4. An additional £400 for the adverse effect upon the resident of its handling of the leak reported in August 2022.
  5. An additional £250 for the adverse effect upon the resident of its handling of the driveway service request.
  6. £200 offered in the stage 2 response of March 2022.
  7. £150 offered in the stage 1 response of July 2021.
  8. £350 offered in the stage 2 response of December 2022.
  9. Any payment already made to the resident following the stage 1 or stage 2 responses should be deducted from the total.
3. Arrange an inspection of the leak the resident is experiencing through his extractor to establish if any temporary repairs are appropriate before any planned work begins.
4. Arrange a further inspection of the driveway with the aim of responding to the resident’s concerns and addressing any repair issues.
5. Agree with the resident a process by which it will provide him with regular updates about the progress of outstanding work.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its record keeping, specifically its processes for maintaining records to ensure repairs completed are appropriately recorded.

Recommendations

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Arrange to inspect all guttering at the property to ensure that issues identified on 17 June 2021 have been remedied.
2. Review its complaints policy to bring complaint response timescales in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and remind staff to apologise when timescales for providing complaint responses are not met.