Wolverhampton City Council (202227152)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227152

Wolverhampton City Council

20 May 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 handling of a roof leak.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord, an arms length management organisation (ALMO), since 2016. The property is a flat on the top floor of a block.

Summary of events

4. On 1 November 2022, the resident reported a roof leak, which meant that water was coming into the property when it rained and the landlord raised a routine works order to attend.
5. Over the next 2 weeks, the resident chased an update on at least 3 occasions and on 15 November 2022, the landlord told him it would attend on 24 November 2022; which it did and identified the cause of the leak was a damaged chimney.
6. On 2 December 2022 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the chimney repairs and the same day, the landlord raised a programmed works order for the job.
7. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 7 December 2022, that since it attended the previous month, he had contacted it on a number of occasions about the repair works. He had received no update or feedback until that day, when he had been told that the job may not be completed until March 2023. The leak occurred when it rained heavily and was causing damp and water damage to his property. He could not repair the internal damage, until the landlord carried out the required works and he asked it to compensate him for costs of repairing the internal damage.
8. Twelve days later, the resident made further contact with the landlord regarding his complaint and on 23 December 2022, he resubmitted his complaint to the landlord.
9. The landlord contacted the resident 11 working days later regarding his complaint and he said that he had incurred an additional expense of buying a dehumidifier to address the moisture levels in the property and wanted this considered as part of the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 January 2023 and told him that a response would be provided by 25 January 2023.
10. On 18 January 2023, the landlord attended and completed the works to the chimney.
11. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 January 2023, which said:
    1. It had attended to assess the leak within the required 20 working day timeframe. The works required were assessed and raised as a job that would be completed within 90 days, which was the correct category for that type of leak. It had completed the repair to the chimney within the required timeframe and did not uphold that part ofhis complaint.
    2. It would not refund him the cost for a dehumidifier as the job had been completed within its required timescales. It suggested he contact his building and contents insurance providers.
    3. It partially upheld the element of his complaint regarding a lack of communication and updates. It apologised that it had not kept him fully updated on the progress of the repair and offered him £50 compensation in recognition of this. It had given feedback to the relevant team as learning.
12. The resident replied the same day that he was not happy with compensation offered as this did not cover the expenses he had incurred. He disagreed that a 90 day timeframe was acceptable. The leak had caused moisture and damp in his property, which meant a dehumidifier was being used for more than 12 hours a day. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint 6 working days later and told him it would respond by 3 March 2023.
13. On 5 and 6 February 2023, the resident reported that the roof leak was ongoing. The landlord raised a routine works order and attended on 27 February 2023. It noted that there was damage and staining to the walls and ceiling but this was not fresh and the areas were not wet. There was cracked wallpaper that was damp, which could have been because it was holding moisture from the original leak. It recommended removing this so the ceiling and walls could dry out. It suggested moving the dehumidifier into the hallway to help reduce the moisture levels in the property.
14. The landlord told the resident on 3 March 2023 that its investigation into his complaint was taking longer than anticipated.
15. On 6 March 2023, the landlord inspected the chimney and confirmed it had been rebuilt. It identified some further, preventative works it could do and raised a routine works order for these the following day. The landlord said these works were completed the same month.
16. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 March 2023, which said:
    1. It had reviewed the circumstances of the works required and confirmed that due to the type and severity of the repair and considering the type of leak, the 90 day timeframe for this to be completed was correct. The repair was completed in 50 days, which was within the timeframe and so this element of his complaint was not upheld.
    2. It summarised the visits carried out on 27 February and 6 March 2023 and the advice given. It would attend later that month to carry out some further preventative works to the chimney to reduce the risk of further leaks.
    3. It offered him £250 compensation, which included the £50 offered at stage 1 for the lack of communication and an additional £200 in recognition of the additional expense incurred of a dehumidifier and the running costs of this.
    4. If he was not satisfied with the response, he could contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Assessment and findings

Handling of a roof leak

17. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof as per the guidance on its website, which confirms that for leasehold properties, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the building, including roofs and chimneys.
18. When the resident reported the leak in November 2022 and February 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord categorised these as routine repairs because the leak was not constant and only happened when it rained, which meant that it was containable.
19. The resident has said that the landlord should have categorised this as an emergency repair; however, the landlord’s repairs policy says that water leaks are categorised as emergencies when they cannot be contained; which is reasonable, and so it was appropriate that the landlord did not categorise the leak as an emergency repair.
20. The landlord attended the resident’s property in 18 working days in November 2022 and 16 working days in February 2023, both of which were within the committed response time of 20 working days for routine repairs, set out in its repairs policy. While frustrating for the resident that the landlord could not complete the repair at the initial appointment in November 2022, this was understandable considering the leak was as a result of a damaged chimney and the fact that scaffolding was required to access this.
21. Once the landlord identified the cause of the leak, it was 8 days before it raised the works order for this job. The records indicate that this was because it needed to get authorisation for the works to go ahead. While understandable and not an unreasonable delay, the landlord should have taken steps to ensure this was done more quickly, considering the leak into the property was ongoing when it rained.
22. The landlord categorised the chimney repairs as ‘programmed’, which its repairs policy says will be completed within 90 calendar days from the initial service request or property inspection. The resident has disagreed with this categorisation and while frustrating for him, the landlord’s decision was reasonable, considering the scope of the works required and because scaffolding was needed.
23. The landlord completed these works 79 days after the initial service request, which was 56 days after it inspected the property, and was within the 90 day timeframe committed in its repairs policy. While understandable that the resident wanted the repair completed sooner, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its repairs policy.
24. When the resident reported that the leak was ongoing in February 2023, the landlord reinspected the chimney to confirm the works had been completed, which showed that it took the matter seriously. It also identified some further, preventative works, which again, showed it was taking the matter seriously and was committed to preventing further leaks from occurring in the future.
25. The landlord’s refusal to reimburse the resident’s costs incurred for a dehumidifier at stage 1 was reasonable, as it had acted in line with its repairs policy. When it reviewed this at stage 2, it agreed to reimburse him £200 for this, which goes beyond the expectations of the Ombudsman and shows that it wanted to support the resident to find a satisfactory resolution to his complaint. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £200 offered, if not done so already.
26. While the landlord attended and completed the works within the required timeframes, the evidence shows that the resident chased repeatedly for updates in November and December 2022, rather than the landlord being proactive in its communication with him. The landlord recognised there was service failure in its handling of this issue, particularly in relation to the communication. It has apologised, offered compensation and identified learning, all of which are in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
27. The resident has said he is dissatisfied with the £50 compensation offered because it does not accurately reflect the costs incurred; however, this amount was not meant to reflect this and was in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, in respect of the landlord’s poor communication.
28. Considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the amount offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of a roof leak. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £50 already offered, if not done so already.

Complaint handling

29. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 35 working days and the stage 2 complaint in 29 working days, both of which are over the committed response times of 10 and 20 working days set out in its complaints policy.
30. The landlord did provide an update to the resident regarding the delay at stage 2; however, this was at 26 days, which was already over the committed response timeframe and did not provide a date when the resident would receive a response, which is committed in its complaint policy. The delays and lack of detailed updates amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
31. From the records provided, the resident submitted his initial complaint on at least 2 occasions before the landlord contacted him or acknowledged receipt of this. When it did acknowledge the stage 1 complaint, this was 24 working days after he had first submitted the complaint, which was significantly over the committed timescale of 5 working days and amounts to maladministration.
32. Within the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 acknowledgements, it confirmed the date a response would be provided; however, this was calculated from the date of the acknowledgement, rather than the date the complaint was submitted, which is the commitment made in the landlord’s complaints policy. These errors in calculating the correct response deadlines contributed to the overall delays and amounts to maladministration.
33. A further error was made by the landlord in its stage 2 response, when it provided escalation details for the LGSCO, rather than this Service. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling in line with its complaints policy.
34. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delays in its complaint handling in either of its formal responses. This was dismissive and made the resident lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £200 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of a roof leak.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

37. The landlord complied with its repairs policy when attending and completing the works required to resolve the leak, but acknowledged there had been service failure in its communication regarding this issue. It, apologised, offered reasonable compensation and identified learning, all of which are in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
38. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, with little or no acknowledgement of this. It miscalculated the deadlines for responses to be provided, which contributed to the overall delays.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling.
40. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
41. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on complaint handling in line with its complaints policy.
42. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above order, to this Service, within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

43. Pay the resident £250 compensation (£200 for reimbursement of costs associated with the dehumidifier and £50 for its handling of a roof leak) if not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
44. The landlord to notify this Service of its intentions regarding the above recommendation within 4 weeks.