Barnet Council (201914457)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914457

Barnet Homes

25 February 2021

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 has complained that:
1. The landlord has taken too long to resolve a fault with their heating system
2. The landlord had taken too long to resolve a roof/ceiling leak

Background

The resident reported a leak affecting their kitchen ceiling in February 2018. The landlord’s contractor attended 6 days later. The landlord also arranged a full property inspection by its void manager at the start of March 2018 due to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the property. As part of this inspection the landlord offered to board and decorate the kitchen ceiling following on from the leak. These actions were confirmed in a stage 1 response in March 2018.
The leak was confirmed by both parties as ongoing during the correspondence that led to the final response (March 2020). Neither party has provided documents from the intervening time however that detail how the leak was reported or how it was investigated. The resident did refer to the Voids manager inspecting the ceiling during their visits, though the only specific date in the documents received is from March 2018.
The resident has explained to the Ombudsman in 2020 that the roof leak / ceiling repair was ‘ignored for the whole of last year, ie 2019.
The majority of the correspondence focuses on the heating issues (albeit again with limited supporting information). In terms of the kitchen ceiling, both parties agreed in March 2020 that the leak was ongoing. The landlord described it as ‘slow and not causing considerable internal damage.’ Therefore it explained it would manage the repair under its planned maintenance programme and that it did not ‘anticipate a significant delay.’ It also confirmed it would arranged the redecoration works when the repairs were complete.
The landlord stated that the heating issue was first raised in January 2019. The landlord’s complaint responses and the internal correspondence with its contractors refer to this time period. The resident disputed January 2019 as the state date in their response to the stage 2 letter, explaining they had discussed it with the landlord’s staff some months previously. There are however no documents on file from the time that show that the heating was raised prior to January 2019.
The resident reported significant noise from the radiators to the extent that they prevented sleep. The heating was also recorded by the landlord as intermittent. The landlord’s contractors attended in January 2019 and referred the matter for to a specialist contractor as it was a ‘commercial heating system.’ An appointment for 31 January was confirmed on 30 January.
Unfortunately the resident was not at the property and so the contractor did not gain access. The contractor could not then reach the resident on the phone in the following days.
The resident chased the matter in May 2019 with the specialist contractor. It transpired there had been an exchange of ‘WhatsApp’ messages between the engineer and the resident in February where the resident requested visits and the engineer appeared to agree, only for no visit to happen.
The landlord’s stage 1 response in May 2019 explained that none of this communication had been passed back to the landlord and so it was not aware of the residents efforts to arrange a visit or how the engineer had handled it. The stage 1 response reminded the resident that all contact should be direct with it. It also confirmed that the contractor had visited in May and while it did not agree the radiators needed replacing, it had ordered new parts to be installed the following week.
These works did not rectify the issue. As such the landlord arranged for a specialist report in July 2019. The landlord then arranged for works to be completed in August 2019.
Again the issue was not resolved and the landlord arranged for further visits by its specialist contractor. The landlord has failed to provide specific information for this period. The tenant has explained they have had 15 visits in total however by the specialist contractor.
No further specific information about the landlord’s actions has been provided, until its final response in March 2020. It explained:

The process had taken too long and as such the complaint was upheld
The issue was complex and, at that point, the landlord believed it may relate to air in the pipes and the position of the flat
That the landlord had ordered all the repairs recommended in the updated (2020) report by the specialist surveyor. Furthermore the landlord would test the system every 48 hours after these works to ensure they are either successful, or to avoid the delays experienced following previous unsuccessful works.
That the works would included the replacement of all radiators, and possibly the associated pipes
That the landlord would also design a (unspecified) contingency plan while the works were completed to ensure it is ready to respond in case these works were unsuccessful
That it would provide 3 temporary heaters
That it would consider compensation when the works were completed

The tenant responded to the final response to say they were happy with this plan of action. After the resident’s contact the landlord wrote to offer compensation on 20 March 2020. It explained the works had been due to start at the end of March, but had been delayed due to the resident needing to self-isolate due to coronavirus.
The landlord offered £1200, calculated from 20% of the previous year’s rent. It arranged to transfer £100 immediately to help with costs. It then explained £943.03 would be paid to the rent account due to arrears and the remaining £256.97 would be paid to the resident.

After the final response

The role of the Housing Ombudsman Service is to assess how a landlord has handled a forma complaint about its service. Therefore we cannot investigate issues or incidents that have not already been investigated and responded to by the landlord.
Both of the issues above, the leak/kitchen ceiling and the heating, have continued beyond the final response. The issues that have arisen and the landlord’s responses are not something we can assess in this case. They would have to be for a new formal complaint for the landlord to respond to first.
In summary, from the updates provided by both parties, the period after the final response has seen:
1. The heating continued to make noises and not always work. There are emails from November 2020, and the resident has reported the issues have continued in 2021
2. The roof leak continued through 2020 (with an email reporting continued problems in December 2020). There was a roof inspection in July 2020, and at this time the leak allowed enough water into the kitchen to stop the light working.
It is clear that there are ongoing, unresolved repair issues at the property. This case can only focus on the period up to March 2020, however the landlord has a range of issues to address after that time including both addressing any outstanding repairs and reviewing the service it has provided March 2020-February 2021 as part of considering what further redress will be offered to the resident. This redress should take into account that one of the Housing Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles is that landlords learn from complaints. Therefore where there are repeated service failures or delays the landlord should consider this as an additional factor for redress in any offer.
Given the ongoing nature of these issues they have been addressed by formal recommendations below.

Assessment

The landlord has upheld both the complaints about the heating and the leak. It is not in dispute that the repairs issues have been ongoing since February 2018 for the leak, and since at least January 2019 for the heating.
As explained above, the period for this assessment is limited until March 2020. By this time the issues had not been resolved. Therefore this case is an assessment of the efforts the landlord has made to resolve the issues in that period together with reasonableness of the offer of redress it has made for that period.

Leak

The landlord responded to the initial reports appropriately in February/March 2018. It explained the cause of the leak (and that it differed from a 2017 leak) and explained how it would resolve the kitchen ceiling repair.
However the limited information provided by the landlord means it is not possible to determine that the issue was then followed up appropriately. Furthermore the issues then continued through 2019 and there is no evidence to show that the landlord investigated the causes of the leak or completed repairs. The resident has stated that the leak was ‘ignored’ during 2019 and the landlord has not provided any information to counter this.
Therefore on the limited evidence provided by the landlord there was a failure in the repair service in handling the ongoing leak. The landlord has offered a catch-all compensation payment which has been considered separately below as to whether it addresses this failure.
The landlord’s own final response agrees that the leak had been ongoing for the 2018-2020 period. It then proposed to address the leak through its planned works.
The landlord’s repair policy states that planned works should be complete within 60 days. The policy also explains that a roof leak will require an inspection and follow up repair. This places it into either its programmed (28 days) or planned (60 days) work categories.
From the information provided this repair was not completed. The issue was ongoing in July, when a roof inspection was completed, and electrics had to be repaired in August as a result of the leak. Under the 60 day timeframe the repairs should have been completed in May.
While this assessment cannot consider how the incidents beyond the final response were handled, we can consider whether the actual final response was adhered to or not. Therefore given the leak was not resolved as a planned work as offered in the final response, this is a further failure of the repair service.

Heating

The landlord has conducted various investigations of the heating. It has explained how it is a complex issue that has affected the whole building. Therefore it is understandable that an issue of this nature will take longer to diagnose and resolve.
However, as the landlord upheld in its final response, the investigations and resulting works were not completed in as timely a manner as would be reasonably expected.
The initial investigation in January/February 2019 was in good time. The period from February to May was outside the landlord’s control. It is clear from the landlord’s website and other resources that repairs must be reported to its repairs service. Therefore it is not responsible for the tenant not providing access in January, or the direct contact between he resident and engineer. The internal correspondence shows the landlord raised this issue with its contractor.
The landlord then completed works in May, and July/August. The information provided after this period is limited and as such does not demonstrate how the landlord was providing a reasonable repair service. IT is clear from the landlord and the resident’s correspondence that the heating issues (noise and intermittent service) was ongoing however. Therefore this period from summer 2019 until the next specific action plan in the March 2020 final response is a failure of the repair service.
The landlord only offered separate heating in its March 2020 final response. This means the resident appears to have been without alternative heating during winter 2019/20 despite the landlord knowing of the heating issues. This is a failure that has not been identified in the landlord’s complaint responses.
The landlord did provide an appropriate action plan for the heating repairs in the final response. The resident also confirmed they were satisfied with it. The incidents that occurred later in 2020 (where the heating issues returned) are outside the time period this report can consider. Therefore the remaining issues is whether the offer of compensation was sufficient to redress the failures identified above.

Compensation

The landlord offered £1200 calculated as 20% of the rent for 2019. It is not clear how this applied to the ongoing leak issue, which began before that period in February 2018. It is also not clear why the calculation did not extend beyond 2019 and into 2020, given the response was not until March 2020 and the issue had not been resolved.
A more specific explanation of the compensation would have been a more effective approach to dispute resolution, as it would demonstrate the various issues that the landlord considered the resident required redress for.
The Housing Ombudsman Service remedies Guidance suggests:

“Awards of £700 and above – Remedies in the range of these amounts are used in recognition of maladministration / severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both”

Therefore the landlord’s offer of £1200 is a significant offer of redress. However the offer itself does not follow the progress of the issues at hand. Therefore additional compensation should be offered for the distress and inconvenience experienced in January-March 2020 and in 2018.
As 20% of the rent was refunded for 2019, and the situation did not change in 2020 in the run up to the final response, this calculation should be applied for that period too. This would mean a further £300. The situation was different in 2018 as the heating was not an ongoing issue and while the landlord had not correctly followed up the March inspection, it is also not clear to what extent the resident chased the matter. With that in mind the additional compensation would not need to be calculated as a percentage of the rent, and would be appropriate as a discrete figure.
From the information provided (the wording of the final response) it appears that the temporary heaters were not provided until March 2020. These should have been offered earlier and as such additional compensation should be paid for the inconvenience this late offer will have caused. Furthermore the landlord does not appear to have offered any compensation towards the running of the temporary heaters. Given these heaters will result in additional charges t the resident it is reasonable to expect the landlord to contribute to these costs.
The offer of compensation was in March 2020. As explained above however there was a further failure not included in this offer, given the landlord stated it would complete the roof repairs as planned works (60 days) in its final response, but did not. A further offer of compensation should be made to redress the distress this failure will have caused. This is separate to any redress that the landlord might consider when investigating a new complaint about its handling of the leak from May 2020 onwards.

Determination (decision)

I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the heating repairs
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak

Reasons

The landlord has taken too long to resolve the heating issue. The landlord’s supporting information is inadequate to show what actions it has taken. It has not offered sufficient support to the resident while they lived with intermittent heating. The landlord’s calculation of compensation does not correspond to the details of the case.
The landlord has taken too long to resolve the leak. The landlord’s supporting information is inadequate and does not show what actions it took to investigate or try and resolve the leak for considerable periods of time. The landlord’s calculation of compensation does not correspond to the details of the case.

Orders and recommendations

As a result of the determination above I have ordered that within 4 weeks the landlord will:
1. In addition to the £1200 already offered, pay the resident £750. This is calculated from:
  1. £300 for the January-March 2020 period using the landlord’s own calculation
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience of not following up the leak after the initial investigation in 2018
  3. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience of not providing temporary heaters earlier (and in particular in time for winter)
  4. £50 to acknowledge the cost of having to run temporary heaters
  5. £150 for the distress and inconvenience of not completing the repair to the leak as offered in the final response
I would also like to recommend that:
1. The landlord open a formal complaint about its handling of both the leak and the heating issue for the period after this final response. This is based on the continued issues that the resident has faced and their continued dissatisfaction. The landlord should contact the resident as a matter of urgency to discuss how this ongoing dispute can best be investigated.