The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Canterbury City Council (202202145)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202145

Canterbury City Council

22 April 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a request to remove moss from the roof.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord. The property is a sheltered bungalow with its own private garden. The resident has physical health conditions, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 23 January 2023 the resident’s MP informed the landlord that she had raised concerns about moss on the roof. The resident advised that birds would sit on the roof and throw moss into her garden. She said that she had already slipped due to this and felt that the landlord should clean the roof for maintenance and health and safety reasons.
  3. On 6 February 2023 the landlord responded to her concerns at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said that it was not responsible for the removal of moss from roof tiles, and this was not a task it would undertake at any of its housing sites. It added that it was not a requirement for it to do so under health and safety but, if necessary, may do so as part of other roofing works. It concluded it would not clear ‘items’ from her garden area as it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain, but it could support her to move to a property without a garden.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the build-up of moss on the roof had the potential to cause further damage to the property and that the moss in the garden was causing health and safety issues in the form of slips, trips and falls. She added that it was not the responsibility of tenants to personally finance the removal of moss from the roof to prevent what could be a serious accident.
  5. On 10 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said that it was obligated to keep roofs watertight, and it would carry out repairs to ensure this. It stated that the removal of moss was not a repair and there was no programme for moss removal as this was not a required landlord function. It added that it could not be held responsible for any injury caused by moss that a bird had dropped in the resident’s private garden and that it would defend any court action.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that allowing moss to build up on the roof will in time cause problems including leaks. She maintained that it remained a health and safety issue and that the landlord had ignored her concerns. She was also concerned that the landlord had not visited her property to investigate her complaint and decide whether it was justified. She said that the landlord should remove the moss from the roof to prevent any damage caused by its build-up and prevent the risk of injury.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to the outside of the property including roofs. From the resident’s initial contact with her MP and their subsequent contact with the landlord, there was no evidence to suggest that the roof needed repairing or that the moss had caused damage to the property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it was not responsible for cleaning or clearing the moss from the roof.
  2. However, it could have taken a more customer-focused approach by visiting the property to inspect the issue, particularly given the fact the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the resident stated that the moss on the roof was a maintenance and health, and safety issue. This should have prompted the landlord to carry out a risk assessment and to inspect the roof to ascertain if the moss was causing any damage. Indeed, in its response to this Service the landlord stated that it would depend on an ‘assessment made’ to ascertain if there was ‘real health and safety risk’. Yet there is no evidence that the landlord inspected to assess the matter. This was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord and a recommendation has been made below in respect of this.
  3. Although the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns about the build of moss on the roof, the landlord was under no obligation to remove it. In addition, there was no evidence of any actual damage or repairs needed to the roof. Furthermore, its responses clearly explained its position and outlined its landlord responsibilities accurately. In view of this Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in respect of its response to a request to remove moss from the roof.
  4. Nonetheless, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have been more understanding of the resident’s concerns. Its final response stated that it would ‘defend any court action’. This was a heavy-handed statement. In addition, its final response did not appear to fully appreciate what were understandable safety concerns, given the resident’s previous slip. In view of this, this service has identified actions the landlord can take from this complaint to improve the landlord-tenant relationship. This is set out as a recommendation below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to a request to remove moss from the roof.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should inspect the roof and satisfy itself that there is no health and safety risk in respect of the moss. If any repairs are identified, it should carry these out within its policy timescales and consider removing the moss.
  2. The landlord should review the tone of its communication and responses and consider staff training for complaint handlers and front-line staff.