A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202107807)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107807

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

31 August 2023 (amended at review 7 December 2023)

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of roof leaks affecting the property and associated damage caused.
2. Request for a service charge refund due to lack of service.
3. Request for compensation relating to boiler damage/new boiler.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a one bedroom third floor flat. The leasehold began in October 2008, and the freehold of the property is held by the landlord.
The resident’s lease states that she will pay the service charge to the landlord. The lease also states that subject to the payment of the service charge, the landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate and renew or shall procure the maintenance, repair, redecoration and renewal of the roof, foundations, main structure, all external parts and the common parts of the building and estate.
The lease states that the landlord shall not be liable for any damage suffered by the resident or any member of the resident’s family, or any employee, servant, or licensee of the resident through any defect in any fixture, tank, pipe, wire, staircase, machinery apparatus, or thing in the building or through the neglect, default, or misconduct of any servant employed by the landlord in connection with the building or for any damage to the premises due to the bursting or overflowing of any pipe, tank, boiler, or drain in the building except insofar as any such liability may be covered by insurance effected by the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not include information about latent defects. It splits its repairs into two categories, these are urgent repairs which are dealt with within 24 hours, and standard repairs, which are dealt with at the next available appointment which is convenient with the customer. The policy also states that all repairs with the exception of “urgent” and “communal”, are made by appointment with the resident at the time its reported. It states it is responsible for repairs to the roof of the property and treats these as a standard repair.
The complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint states that upon receipt of a complaint, an acknowledgement would be sent within two working days. The complaint would be allocated to a complaints and resolution caseworker, who has a further one to two working days, from the day of receipt by the landlord to contact the resident. The policy does not provide timescales for the provision of responses for either its stage 1 or stage 2 process.

Summary of events

The resident had an issue with her central heating and reported this to the landlord in January 2015. Following a service attempt by her energy supplier, it was identified there were some issues with her boiler. They explained to her that the boiler flue was incorrectly installed and was allowing water to enter her boiler. Due to this and other issues, her energy supplier was unwilling to work on the boiler unless the landlord resolved all the problems they identified. She stated she was left with no heating or hot water. This also left her unable to insure the boiler with her energy provider.
The landlord’s records show that it undertook works in response to issues with the roof between 2019 and 2022. It shows that work had previously been completed on the roof on a few occasions in 2019 to try and address a leak, such as on 2 February 2019, 10 February 2019, and 9 September 2019. It also shows that it attempted to contact the resident at times and could not reach her by telephone or text message. Further works continued and were completed between 2020 and 2022.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with any specific records of the resident initially contacting the landlord about a leak. However, the landlord has provided internal emails which show that on 13 December 2019, it explained that the resident had contacted it and advised that there was an ongoing leak in her property since September 2019. The resident explained there were buckets all over the property, and due to the wet weather, things were getting worse. It said that a previous job had been raised on 28 August 2019, but was closed as the contractor could not gain access to the roof terrace. On the same day, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend to change the lock to allow for access to the roof.
On 16 December 2019, the landlord explained to the resident that an appointment was made to gain access to the roof on 23 December 2019. Its contractor was trying to bring the appointment forward, and after gaining access to and getting the keys copied, an appointment would then be made to conduct the works to the roof. It provided her with information on how to make an insurance claim and get help in an emergency and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s chronology however shows that the contractor had access to the roof, and “unblocked outlet and hopper head 19” on 9 September 2019.
The landlord’s services were impacted by the national lockdown between 23 March 2020 and 19 July 2021 as its repairs contractor was not completing repairs during this period.
On 11 September 2020, the landlord received a call from the resident who stated she had made a complaint about a roof leak at her property that had taken over a year to resolve. She said she wanted compensation and queried if this could be added to her service charge account.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 May 2021, to provide it with “final notice” and to complain about the repair to the roof in her property and communal area of the flat. She explained:
1. The problem started in May 2017, and it originated from the communal area between two other flats, and it had now expanded into her property. Since then, she had requested that the landlord solve the problem, but nothing happened. Whenever she requested the repair on its website, she would receive appointments after 20 to 25 days. A few days before the repair date, the appointments would be cancelled, and nobody came out to inspect or repair the leak for about half a year. Between May 2017 and 23 May 2021, she had only had four appointments made by the landlord to see the repair work. Among these, two appointments were for visual inspections and not for a repair.
2. On 18 December 2020, the landlord visited her floor to see the leak. It informed her that it was aware of the issue; but nobody came to repair her roof until April 2021, despite her frequent contact for updates.
3. She had a £2-coin sized hole in the ceiling of her bedroom, which was created by the water ingress. This had damaged her furniture over the last few years, the roof would leak badly when it rained and there was a lot of “mucus”, damp, odour, and flies in the flat and in the communal area between her neighbours’ flats.
4. If the leak was not rectified by 1 June 2021, she would be going to the Ombudsman. She had faced a lot of stress due to the leaking roof over the years and she had been living in an unhygienic environment since May 2017. She had paid all her service charges regularly though she is not given any kind of service.
5. She requested the landlord return all her service charge since May 2017 and she was given the same amount for the inconvenience and stress caused.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 June 2021 about the leak. She said it was raining heavily and she had found another leak from the roof into her kitchen area. She explained it was in connection with her boiler which had stopped working, and there was no hot water in her property. She said when it rained, water was coming from the ceiling and entering her boiler and stopped it from working. The resident said she had observed that when it was raining, the leak started, and it stopped when the rain stopped. She said hot water was a necessity and she did not have any because of the leak. She requested that the landlord solve the problem on an urgent basis and fix her boiler. She explained she had found two litres of water collected in her boiler area after an hour and the leakage was heavy. She provided photographs and videos for the landlord’s reference.
The landlord contacted the resident on the same day and apologised for the delay in responding to her. It explained it had been chasing its contractors to provide it with an update about the roof works. It said the contractors had advised it that works were completed to the roof on 24 February 2021, and following the email of May 2021, a new work order was raised on 28 June 2021. It explained it had referred back to its roofing contractor to investigate as a priority and expected them to follow up with her. The landlord asked her to contact customer services for any further information about the new repair. It provided her with a link to allow her to submit a building insurance claim.
The landlord called the resident about her complaint on 6 July 2021. She reiterated her concerns about the water ingress into her property and her boiler not working and explained:
1. The water ingress had caused damp on the walls in the bedroom and the water was falling on her carpet and when it rained it got worse.
2. The ceiling in the bedroom had a huge crack in. She said the landlord had sent someone to the property to check what was going on and she had videos and pictures and so did the landlord and the leasehold manager who she had not been able to contact for a while.
3. She wanted the roof fixed and to be compensated for the damages caused to the inside of her property.

On the same day, the landlord contacted the resident, acknowledging and updating her on her complaint.

The landlord’s contractor attended the block on 30 July 2021 and advised it that there was an overflow leak which required a plumber. The contractor then attended the resident’s property, and she informed it the leak was present even when it was not raining. They found that the leak was further back, beyond where the roof finished. An appointment was then arranged for 4 August 2021.
A plumber attended the resident’s property on 4 August 2021. They stated that the communal hallway outside her property’s ceiling showed signs of a water leak from the roof which had caused damage to ceiling tiles, walls, and skirting. They explained inside the property, they found signs of old leaks and new as the area was still damp. They stated, follow on works were required by a roofer to “examine the roof, clear the downpipe and hooper head.” They also noted that the resident complained of leaks coming in to the boiler.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 August 2021, which included the following:
1. It apologised for the issues she was having concerning the roof and the delay in responding. It explained that it was awaiting reports from its repair service and its roof contractors.
2. It noted that her complaints were about the delays in repair work to the roof of her property which had been ongoing since 2017 and the communication issues with the leasehold’s property manager. It said that to investigate the complaint, it had looked at the contact previously made with it and clarified contact with the service area. It also said that it reviewed the reports submitted by the relevant departments concerned.
3. It understood her frustration with the issue and the inconvenience which it caused. It could see from the reports that various attempts had been made to resolve the issue, with visits made each time a problem was reported; however, it was obvious it had failed to fix the underlying issues in a timely manner, and it apologised for this.
4. It had been working actively with its roofing contractors to fix the issue and it was confident that this would finally resolve the problem which it understood was not a simple fix, unfortunately.
5. It agreed to undertake the necessary repair work to the roof by the “very latest 30 September 2021”. This date allowed for any more complicated structural work which may be necessary. It provided the resident with a point of contact to ensure the works were completed to a good standard within the timeframe.
6. Regarding the internal damage to her property and personal items, it provided an insurance claim form, and asked her to complete and return it, and it would consider if its insurance would cover any damage.
7. It offered the resident compensation of £475, consisting of:
  1. £240 for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue;
  2. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the delays;
  3. £50 for the communication issues she highlighted;
  4. £35 for the delay in replying to her complaint.
The resident responded to the landlord on 16 August 2021. She explained she was not satisfied with the outcome and wanted to escalate her complaint. She reiterated the location of the three leaks, the length of time they had been present and her concerns. She questioned the service charges and lack of repairs and said she believed she should be refunded and asked for repairs to be completed. She explained:
1. The leak in her bedroom had caused her difficulties. She reiterated she had been living in an unhygienic area for the past five years with her son.
2. She provided a letter from her energy provider from 2015 explaining why it would not provide her with boiler and central heating insurance. She explained both herself and a senior manager from her energy provider had contacted the landlord many times to repair the leak, but no action had been taken by the landlord.
3. She explained the costs she had incurred around the boiler and that she had been informed by a boiler engineer that the leakages were part of a construction error by the landlord. She said she had been advised the leaks “made the boiler bad” and it was better for her to replace it than continuously repair it. She had been quoted £3,616 for the replacement, but it would be reduced to £3,153.86 if she qualified for a state benefit grant.
4. She said considering all this, she believed it was nearly the same amount of service charge and sinking fund she had paid and she wanted to be compensated accordingly.
On the same day, the landlord responded to the resident and thanked her for her escalation to stage 2 of its complaints process. It said her complaint would be checked prior to escalation to determine whether it should be investigated formally as a stage 2 or be reviewed again at stage 1 and told her to expect a response. It explained in relation to her complaint at stage 2, it would be considering this from 2019, when she originally raised the issue, as it was unable to consider historical problems beyond a certain date. The landlord said cases prior to 2019 would not be considered as “the time difference between them would have deemed the problem had been rectified”. It apologised that the complaint remained unresolved and said it would work with her to try and resolve matters at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 August 2021, thanked her for escalating, and said her complaint would be considered at stage 2 by one of the heads of service. They would impartially consider her case and she would receive a response as soon as the review was completed.
The landlord referred the work to a supervisor as its contractor stated it was a plumbing issue, but the plumber identified that it was a roofing issue.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email on 21 October 2021. She was dissatisfied to know that her complaint would only be considered from 2019 onwards, despite issues prior to that time. She stated that knowing this had caused her great frustration and “broken her spirit of getting justice” as she was not at fault for the issue. She explained:
1. The landlord had promised to rectify the issue by 30 September 2021, and as of the date of her email, the works had not started.
2. On 30 September 2021, two operatives came to her door without an appointment, worked on her property for about an hour and then in the communal areas and since then no more works had been completed. They removed a cupboard in her property, and doing so made it difficult for her to collect the rainwater which was now falling directly onto her carpet and a blanket.
3. As there was a hole in her ceiling which was left open for at least 21 days, there had been an increase in insects in her bedroom and the entire property. She stated the rainwater was being collected in the ceiling and was loud, waking her up at night when it rained. The “rain” made her flat extremely humid and she had trouble breathing. She stated her flat was not suitable for living. The resident explained to this service on 9 August 2023, that she informed the landlord she would be getting her own contractors to rectify the problem, and the landlord then fixed the issue.
4. On 1 October 2021, roofers came to find the leak in her flat. She felt they were sent unguided as they were not able to find the communal water tap. They then caused damage to her tap when attaching a water hose, which she was unaware of until they left. Following this, the roofer told her it could not find the leak and after they left, nobody returned to repair the roof. She explained several supervisors from the landlord and its contractor visited her property, but no work had been done on the kitchen or boiler area to prevent the leaks.
5. The issue was a construction error, of placing guttering close to her flue and the overflow of water could be seen through the “black coloured box”. She had provided the landlord with a letter from her energy provider cataloguing all the errors in the boiler area which needed fixing in a previous email.
6. She believed the construction errors needed to be sorted to avoid future leaks otherwise it would require repair/maintenance forever. She asked for the landlord’s service director to consider her stage 2 complaint and arrange repair work at her home as soon as possible. She had claimed under the landlord’s insurance and provided a reference number. She asked if she needed to fill a liability claim form and asked the landlord to do what was required as she was extremely frustrated by the leaks as they had been present since 2015 and remained unsolved.

On the same day, the landlord chased its contractor for an update, and on 3 November 2021, the contractor arranged for the required works to be undertaken.

The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 24 November 2021. It said it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and investigated her concerns. It apologised for not being able to resolve the complaint at stage 1. It understood her reasons for dissatisfaction and her unresolved concerns were that she had three outstanding leaks in her property with the earliest starting in 2015, and that she was unhappy with the compensation offered at stage 1. The landlord explained:
1. Its contractors were working on site and should finish their works by 26 November 2021. Different contractors would then move internally and complete the making good and decorations from 29 November 2021.
2. These works were specified after a joint inspection of the whole roof area by itself and its contractors. After conducting dye tests, five separate defects were found on the property. An inspection was commissioned as the resident reported further leaks after repair work was completed, prior to her current complaint.
3. The original repairs only addressed one obvious problem. It recognised that its contractor should have continued looking for defects before deciding there were no further problems, this was not done, and this was why the other defects were initially missed. It apologised for this.
4. It also apologised that the issues had taken a long time to resolve as this was not the standard of service it aimed to deliver to its residents. It had noted the resident was offered £475 in compensation at stage 1, but based on its findings at stage 2, it was willing to add:
  1. £150 for the quality of work delivered by its contractors, bringing the total to £625.
5. It said it had offered the maximum it was allowed to in relation to works being carried out, length of time taken, and the stress that was caused.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 December 2021 about the roof repair work. She stated there were three major points about the repairs and among them, two repair points were untouched. She confirmed that good work had been conducted to solve the leak from her bedroom ceiling, but the two openings which were created for the repair were left open for about a month and this allowed insects into her flat. She then raised issues with the repairs:
1. When its contractor was fixing her new cupboard on 15 November 2021, they accidentally drilled into a pipe. The contractor took immediate action and rectified the issue, but she felt it best to bring this to the landlord’s attention, so she did not face any dispute about it in the future.
2. There was a leak in the boiler area in the kitchen. She expressed this was a major roof leak and it had been present since 2015 and remained unsolved. The landlord’s contractors had only worked on the area in the bedroom and not the other two areas. The leak had left her boiler in a nonworking condition as rainwater from the roof was pouring on the flame of the boiler. She asked the landlord to solve all remaining roof leaks as soon as possible and said she had health conditions as she has been living in a property with a non-working boiler for a long time. She asked the landlord to contact her by email to avoid further delay.
Following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, between December 2021 and January 2022, communications continued between the landlord, resident, and contractors. The resident raised several issues about both ongoing and completed works such as repairs remaining outstanding to the two areas after the bedroom ceiling was fixed, cleaning of communal areas and carpets following the landlord’s dye tests, painting and decorating the bedroom and her boiler.
She was subsequently informed by the landlord’s contractor the boiler issue was her responsibility to rectify. She then told it she had been left for six months without heating or hot water, including during the winter due to the leak and its contractor’s actions. She said she had made an insurance claim and was requesting it paid the excess of £350 towards her claim so that she could look towards replacing the boiler. It is unclear if the landlord paid this sum.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 14 March 2022 and reiterated her issues with the landlord, its contractor’s actions, her lack of heating and hot water since 27 June 2021, outstanding repairs, the issues caused by the leak into her property, and service charge refund request. She also explained:
1. The landlord had constantly cancelled appointments at the last moment, and it had started working on the last day before the deadline of the stage 1 complaint. At the point of her writing, the repairs remained incomplete.
2. The leak into her boiler started in January 2015 and the landlord did not take any action on it. She had requested it solved the leak, but it did nothing and refused to work on the boiler area. She was informed by boiler companies that the boiler leakages are due to two reasons:
  1. A direct leak from the roof.
  2. A constructional error in the roof.
3. She had to replace the boiler and solve the constructional error with the help of her boiler company. She requested that the landlord support her with “insurance money” as she planned for her contractors to work on the boiler repair, pest control, replacement of carpets, painting the wall and repairing the roof area above the boiler. She also wanted the landlord to complete the rest of the repairs with her contractors.
The landlord explained to this service on 9 September 2022 that the works remained outstanding as they were complex in nature and were latent defects. The initial works were scoped and agreed but were affected by the pandemic, but they had been arranged to resume 9 August 2022. It had offered an additional £100 after the stage 2 response, for communication issues. This made the total amount of redress £735 which it believed was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the long-term effect of the leaks on the resident.
The Ombudsman requested further information from the landlord on 10 August 2023 to clarify issues around the landlord’s access to the roof and the resident’s insurance claim but did not receive a response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Although it is acknowledged that the resident raised issues going back to 2015, the length of time which has passed would make it difficult to obtain accurate records to carry out an investigation about issues going back this far. As such, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2019 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses.
It is recognised that the situation has been distressing for the resident and that she has raised that the issues affected her health. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the impact of such issues on a resident health. Such issues are better dealt with by the courts and the resident may wish to seek independent advice regarding this. The Ombudsman can however consider any distress or inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions or inactions.

Roof leak

The landlord acted in line with its responsibilities under the lease and its repairs policy as it looked to fix the issue with the roof. Once reported, it appropriately appointed contractors to complete works on the roof, but unfortunately, the resident reported that the leak continued, and new leaks developed in her property. Through the further works that it completed, it was able to identify that there were five other repairs required to the building.
Although the landlord acknowledged the repairs to the resident’s property, there is no evidence to support that it provided her with an initial action plan or a timeline in which it aimed to have the repairs completed. Further, it acknowledged in its stage 2 response that its contractor’s failure to appropriately complete an inspection led to defects being missed and identified at an earlier point. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable and would have added to the resident’s frustration and distress.
There are discrepancies in the records provided to this service by the landlord and its reports. Its email of 13 December 2019 suggests that following the work request in 28 August 2019, there was a delay of 3 months before it was able to access the roof. However, its chronology states that its contractor accessed the roof and unblocked an outlet and the hopper head in September 2019 during this 3-month period. It is unclear if the landlord accessed another section of the block’s roof. This service requested clarification on this issue from the landlord but did not receive a response. If there was a 3 month delay, this service believes this was unreasonable, as no explanation as been provided about why it took so long to change the locks to allow for access to the roof. This discrepancy raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord could also have considered temporary measures to stop the water ingress into the resident’s property. There is no evidence that it considered doing this. In the ombudsman’s opinion, such measures might have assisted in reducing the damage caused to her property.
There was a gap of 16 months between February 2020 and June 2021, in which no works appear to have been completed on the resident’s property or the roof. The landlord has explained to this service that the works required were complex and difficult to resolve, and the roof works were considered as latent defects. It also said that initial works were scoped and agreed during the pandemic and its main contractor had stopped working because of the pandemic. While it is recognised that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to the delays to works during this time, for some of this period however, the government restrictions were relaxed, allowing for repair works to be undertaken. Even if there had been further delays caused by a backlog of works for reasons relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, this service has not been provided with evidence that an explanation for the delays had been communicated to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable and led to frustration for her. It would have been best practice for the landlord to have explained the delay to her and the impact COVID-19 would have on its services and those of its contractors to manage her expectations around the works to her property.
The resident informed the landlord that there were insects entering her property from holes left in the ceiling following its investigations into the leaks. This service would have expected the landlord to have investigated and looked to rectify the issue, if it was caused because of either its works to the resident’s property, or the leaks associated with the roof. If it was caused by either of these problems, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have provided the resident with an interim solution, however there is no evidence that it did this.
The landlord proactively completed a dye test in a customer focused attempt to identify a solution for the resident and capture all necessary works. Following the tests, it would have been best practice for the landlord to ensure that it completed a post inspection to ensure it had left the area clean and tidy. However, in this case, the landlord failed to do this and the resident had to inform it that there was dye which needed to be cleaned in the communal area. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unreasonable.
The resident reported water ingress into her property from the roof in September 2019. Although it is unclear exactly when she reported this, the landlord’s records show that it completed works on the roof in September 2019. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been best practice for the landlord to have completed surveys following the resident’s initial repeated reports about the reoccurring leaks, to identify what the issue with the roof was, and any potential solutions which could have rectified the issue at an earlier opportunity. This service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord did this. Due to the delays in addressing the roof leak, the resident suffered detriment as her property was then damaged from the water ingress. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unreasonable. Earlier intervention and investigations could have negated the further damage to her property and personal possessions.
From the information provided, although the landlord completed works on the roof to stop the leaks, the repairs to address the continuing water ingress remained outstanding for 35 months. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is a significant delay and is unreasonable. It caused the resident frustration and distress as the repair remained outstanding for such a long time. It led to her taking the time to complain about the issue to both the landlord and the Ombudsman and saw her living in a state of disrepair, having to collect the water ingress in buckets whenever it rained and damage to her personal possessions. Although COVID-19 played a part in the delays, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there were opportunities prior to and after the lockdowns for the landlord to have taken adequate action to ensure the matter was resolved in a timely manner.
In total, the repairs to address the leaks in the resident’s kitchen remained outstanding for 14 months from her first report to the landlord. This also saw the resident attempting to take responsibility and informing the landlord she would be employing her own contractors due to delays in fixing the hole in the ceiling. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable and added to her frustration as the original leak in her bedroom caused damage to her property, and now the leak in the kitchen threatened to cause more harm.
It is unclear when the resident reported the leak between her kitchen wall and bathroom wall to the landlord, however, from the point she complained about it and the landlord providing information to this service, the repair had been outstanding for 12 months. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable and should have been dealt with promptly.
The landlord acknowledged that there were delays with the repairs and offered the resident an apology and compensation. It also acknowledged its communication was poor and that it had caused the resident stress and inconvenience. To address this, it offered her compensation in the sum of £690. Despite this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this did not go far enough to address the delays faced by the resident with the repairs. The delays saw her telling the landlord she was going to employ her own contractors to try and remedy some of the issues by herself, for the internal repairs the landlord had committed to do. The delay and lack of communication caused her frustration and distress and led to other issues within her property.
This service understands there were mitigating circumstances which delayed the repairs, however, the landlord failed to consider the time and effort the resident went through to repeatedly raise the issue over several years, containing the leaks to stop significant damage to her property, and the hygiene issues, such as flies in the property, over a prolonged period of time. This service understands that she has accepted the compensation offered by the landlord, however, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident was over a protracted period. An order has been made for additional sums to be paid to the resident, which has taken into consideration the additional issues raised.
In summary, the landlord acted in line with its obligations under the lease and the repairs policy as it looked to fix the issue with the roof and by appointing contractors to complete the required repairs. It was also positive that it provided her with its insurance details to allow her to claim for the damage caused to her property. However, although it acknowledged the need for the repairs to the resident’s property, it did not appear to provide an initial action plan on how it planned to effect the repairs. It also failed to consider temporary measures which could stop the water ingress into the resident’s property. Although the repairs were complex in nature and COVID-19 played a part in the delays, there is no evidence provided that an explanation of the delays in works due to the pandemic, was provided to her. The resident reported issues with flies entering her property from the holes left during its works and it provided no evidence that this was investigated, or that it put any measures in place to rectify this until she said she would be bringing in her own contractors to fix this. It failed to ensure that following its dye tests, areas were left in a clean and tidy state. Although the landlord offered compensation, based on the above, In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not go far enough to address the issues and delays.
It would have been best practice for the landlord to have completed surveys following the resident’s reports of water ingress into her property, following its repeated attempts to rectify the issue not working. The repairs to address the leak and stop the water ingress into the resident’s bedroom then remained outstanding for 35 months. Following her report of water ingress from her kitchen ceiling, the repairs remained outstanding for 14 months, and the repairs to address the dripping between her kitchen and bathroom wall remained outstanding for 12 months. The landlord did offer the resident redress for the delays and poor communication, however, this failed to consider the time and effort the resident took in containing the leaks to avoid significant damage to the property, repeatedly raise the need for the repairs and the hygiene issues faced by her for over three years. Had the landlord not offered the level of redress it did, this service would have made a finding of severe maladministration, however as the landlord had taken some steps to address its failings, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Service charge refund

Due to the delays and continued leaks into her property, the resident wanted the landlord to refund service charges she had paid it since 2015. It is important to note that any failures in the landlord’s service are redressed through compensation rather than a direct refund of the service charge. Further, although she asked for a refund from 2015, the Ombudsman is only able to consider issues which arose from 2019 onwards.
In accordance with the lease, the resident is required to pay the service charge to the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, although there were delays on the landlord’s part in addressing the issue which unfortunately led to damage to her property, the landlord demonstrated that it continued to try and address the issues with the roof and the leaks into her property during the period concerned. It arranged for its contractors to attend and complete works in both the resident’s property, and the communal area. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was no failure by the landlord in not refunding the resident the service charge.
If the resident remains concerned regarding the reasonableness of the service charge during the period concerned, it would be open for her to refer the matter to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT). The FTT can determine all aspects of liability to pay a service charge and/ or administration charge, including by whom, to whom, how much and when a service charge is payable. To decide on liability, the FTT also decides whether service charges costs have been reasonably incurred and whether a charge is reasonable.

Compensation for the boiler damage

Following the damage to the resident’s boiler, she informed the landlord that she had made an insurance claim, but she wanted it to pay £350 towards the excess for the claim. She also stated she had been quoted £3,618 for a new boiler as she had been advised that it would be better to obtain a brand-new boiler, than constantly fixing the old one.
The lease agreement states that the landlord is not responsible for damage, except insofar as its insurance covers. When the resident informed the landlord that the leaks had damaged her boiler, it advised her to claim from its building’s insurance for a repair or replacement boiler. It told her to explain to the insurer that she was claiming due to a roof leak which had damaged the boiler. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted reasonably. It acknowledged the roof leaks caused damage to the resident’s property and looked to rectify the issue through its insurance.
The resident associates the leak through the kitchen ceiling into her boiler, and the incident with the landlord’s contractor drilling into the radiator pipe, with her lack of hot water and heating for a period of six months over the winter. It is the responsibility of the insurance company to determine if there is a link between the contractor’s actions, and the damage to the resident’s boiler. As a result, this service cannot determine if the damage to the boiler was caused because of the landlord’s contractor’s action or the leaks from the roof.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with its insurance details to allow her to claim for the damage caused to her personal property by the leaks.
In summary, the resident had no hot water and heating during the winter. She associates this with the water ingress into her boiler and an accident by the landlord’s contractor. It is the responsibility of the insurance company to determine if there is a causal link between the contractor’s actions and the damage to the resident’s boiler, as such the Ombudsman cannot determine the landlord was responsible for the damage. In line with the lease agreement, it acted reasonably by directing her to its insurer when she made it aware of the damage to the boiler. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation relating to the damage to her boiler.

Complaints handling

Although the landlord’s complaints policy provides no timeframes for responses, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was an unreasonable delay in providing the resident with its responses to her complaint. Given the long history associated with the leaks, the failure to provide a prompt response shows the landlord failed to account for the impact of the issues on her appropriately. This would have left her feeling frustrated and inconvenienced at having to wait for responses with no expectation on when they would be received. The lack of timelines provided within the policy leaves the landlord unaccountable for late responses, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman established its complaint handling code in July 2020, as such the landlord should have been aware of the timeframes for acknowledging and responding to complaints at both stages of its complaints process. By acknowledging the complaint, and providing its responses outside of these timeframes, it failed to abide by the complaint handling code. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable.
Following her initial complaint, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 42 days late, which is outside of the timeframes within its policy. It also completed its “scoping call” 41 days late which is again outside of its policy timeframes. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable and would have left the resident wondering what was going on with her complaint, which would have been frustrating for her.
The landlord then provided its stage 1 response two months after the resident raised her complaint. The Ombudsman’s code provides a timeframe of 10 working days for a landlord to provide a stage 1 response to residents.
The landlord in its stage 1 response mentioned that the resident raised issues about the leaks as far back as 2017. It then does not make it clear if it investigated the resident’s complaint from 2017 or if it was acknowledging that there had been a long history. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have been clearer in its communication in the stage 1 response and explained if it was investigating from this far back.
After the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, the landlord informed her it would only be considering her complaint from 2019 onwards. Whilst this service understands that the issues are historic in nature and it might be difficult for the landlord to access accurate information about what happened in 2017, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this would have been confusing for the resident and could be perceived by her as an inconsistent approach to complaint handling. This is because the stage 1 response suggested the landlord had previously considered the issue from 2017, it had created an expectation with her that the issue would be considered from the same point at stage 2. To then inform her it would no longer be doing this at the final point of its internal complaints process was unreasonable and caused the resident further frustration and distress.
Following this, the landlord then provided its stage 2 response 51 working days later than the timescales within the Ombudsman’s code. There is no evidence provided that it informed the resident that its response was going to be late, or that it requested an extension from her to provide its response late. There is also no evidence to suggest that it provided her with an update on what was going on with her complaint and why no response had been received. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable and added to her frustration with the landlord.
Following her stage 1 and stage 2 requests, the resident raised additional issues to the landlord, such as additional leaks, issues with its contractors, requests for reimbursement for her insurance claim excess, a refund of her service charge, and insects in her property. There is no evidence that these were ever addressed by the landlord, as neither its stage 1 nor stage 2 responses mention of the additional issues raised. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states landlords should deal with such issues within their complaint response if it has not already been provided to the resident and would not lead to unnecessary delay to the provision of the response. The landlord failed to address the issues, and this service has not been provided with evidence that they were considered. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unacceptable and shows that the landlord did not take a customer focused approach to its complaints handling.
The landlord acknowledged there were delays in its complaint handling process and offered the resident compensation. Despite this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion this did not go far enough to address the delay to the resident with its complaint handling. The delay, inconsistent complaint handling, lack of communication and updates and failure to request extensions and explain reasons for its delays caused the resident frustration.
In summary, the landlord’s policy provides no timeframes for responses to complaints at either stage of its process. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint 42 days later than it should have. It provided its stage 1 response 54 working days after her complaint was raised, and the stage 2 response 51 working days late. It was ambiguous in its stage 1 response as it mentioned her issues were from 2017 but did not explain if it had investigated from that point. It then decided at stage 2 it would be addressing the resident’s complaint from 2019 onwards. This could be suggestive of inconsistent complaint handling. It then failed to fully address the issues raised by the resident during her stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of leaks from the roof causing subsequent damage to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for the boiler damage/ new boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was no maladministration with the handling of the resident’s request for a refund of service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord addressing the repairs to the roof and the resident’s property. Although it attended to fix the roof on several occasions, it delayed in identifying the reason for the leaks and providing a sustainable solution to them as well as the repairs to the resident’s property.
The landlord acted appropriately by directing the resident to claim for the damage to her boiler through its insurance.
The lease states the resident is responsible for paying service charges. The landlord acted in line with the lease by looking to rectify the issues with the roof. Although there were delays, the landlord did continue to attempt to complete the necessary repairs.
There were delays in the landlord’s acknowledgement and responses to the resident’s complaint at both stages of the process. It failed to address all the issues she raised in her complaint, and raised her expectations that it would complete the outstanding repairs on two occasions and failed to meet its commitment on both occasions.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this report the landlord is to:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the delays in the repairs to her property.

Pay the resident compensation of £1,450 consisting of:

£725 previously offered to the resident across its responses if not already paid. If it has already paid, the landlord should evidence this to the resident.

£475 for the ongoing delays to the resident, her time and effort and the reported hygiene issues faced.

£250 for its complaint handling failings.

Upon receipt of evidence from the resident, the landlord should reimburse them for any money they have paid towards an insurance excess or excesses

Provide evidence of compliance with these orders.