Bristol City Council (202305872)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305872

Bristol City Council

23 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into his property.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord since 1997. The property is a second floor flat in a block. The property has been sub-let by the resident since 2021. The property was empty from 5 December 2022. During the complaint process the resident informed the landlord that he has a long-term mental health condition and a preliminary diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.
On 6 March 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said that he had been experiencing leaks for years but more specifically the past year. The landlord had not taken any action and its communication had been poor. Since December 2022, the property had become inhabitable. This was due to the ingress of water from the rain causing the internal walls to become saturated. He had reported further leaks on 20 December 2022 and the landlord had failed to complete any works to the roof since. An inspection had been completed by a building contractor on 19 January 2023 which the resident believed showed that previous works to the roof had been inadequate.
On 24 March 2023, the landlord sent a stage 1 response. It apologised for the length of time the repair had taken to resolve to a satisfactory standard. It provided a chronology of repairs that it had completed and repairs that were still waiting to be carried out to the roof. It had investigated the options of new roof replacement but as it was a conservation area this could take up to 12 months to go through the planning stages.
It had approved scaffolding and had requested that this be erected without delay. Once this was erected it would be in a better position to check all areas. It was unable to offer compensation as it considered this was something that would be covered by its insurance or the resident’s landlord insurance cover.
On 4 April 2023, the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. In summary he said that maintenance of the roof had been unreasonable before 2022 but especially through 2022. He wanted compensation for:
1. The loss of use of his property.
2. Service charges that he had to pay for previous works which he considered were inadequate.
3. Council tax that he was paying on an empty property.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It provided a list of repairs and planned maintenance that had been completed on the block since May 2020. In summary it said the roof was not due to be replaced until 2059. To bring this forward it would require a 12-month planning process. It apologised that it appeared that previous repair works had not been completed to an acceptable standard or works had been too limited in scope. It aimed to complete post inspections but due to volume of works and resource this was not always prioritised.
Works were due to start on 24 April 2023 but there had been further delays. This was because scaffolding used by previous contractors in 2022 was still in place. This led to the new contractors being unable to safely use the scaffolding or erect their own. It understood that the scaffolding had now been removed and works started on 2 May 2023. It had requested an explanation from its contractor about the cause of further delays.
It provided a link for the resident to claim a council tax discount for an empty property having major repairs. It upheld the complaint on the basis that it was unacceptable for a leaseholder to wait 5 months for repairs to the roof. Also, that the previous repair works had not been quality checked. In recognition of its errors, it offered £500 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble.
On 22 May 2023, the resident contacted this Service. He said that repairs to the roof were completed on 12 May 2023. He remained dissatisfied as the landlord took too long to complete the repairs to the roof. The landlord had been informed that scaffolding had been left at the property prior to the new contractor arriving but it failed to take the appropriate action. The landlord’s failure to post inspect previous works had also protracted the matter. Overall, the landlord’s communication had been poor, and he had to spend time and effort chasing the landlord. This had caused him stress and anxiety. He was retired, and the property was his main source of income.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around the impact on his health, loss of income and any damage to his belongings are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can however assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
The landlord was entitled to refer the resident to its insurer for any claims of damage to his possessions. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about insurance companies and therefore we cannot comment on the insurer’s handling of any claims or any settlement it may offer.
This Service acknowledges the resident states that leaks had been going on for many years and how frustrating this would have been. The records show that leaks were reported in 2020 and 2021. The next report of a leak was not until March 2022.
Due to the passage of time, the landlord’s handling of the repairs back in 2020 and 2021 is not within the scope of this investigation. This is in line with the approach set out in our Scheme that states we can only investigate matters that were brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable timeframe. As such, this investigation has only focused on the reports of leaks raised from March 2022 which led to the resident’s complaint in March 2023.
This Service acknowledges that environmental health inspected the property as part of the resident’s licencing application scheme for private landlords. This inspection was completed in January 2022. As a result of this works were required by the resident and the landlord to meet the licensing application standard.
The actions however of that service are not within the scope of this investigation. This is because the licensing application scheme was provided to the resident by the landlord in its function as a local authority. This Service will not therefore assess the inspection, or the action requested and/or taken relative to the licencing application.
This approach is in line with the approach mandated by our Scheme that states we cannot assess “matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.” If the resident is dissatisfied with the actions related to the local authority licensing application scheme this is a complaint more appropriately suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
As such we have only considered the landlord’s actions as it relates to its functions as a landlord and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. Please note however that reference may be made to the licensing inspection and related actions to provide context as part of this investigation.
In respect of the resident’s concerns about service charges. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns raised. It is not within our remit to determine whether service charge was payable, or the reasonableness of the charges. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) ( https://www.lease-advice.org) in relation to how to proceed with a case, should he wish to do so.
The Ombudsman has noted that since this investigation the resident has advised that further leaks have occurred. This Service acknowledges that the return of the leak is frustrating; but given that the cause has been identified as a separate issue than that which was rectified, the landlord must be given the opportunity to respond to the resident’s additional concerns.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which in his opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’.
It is noted that the landlord has not been given the opportunity to formally consider its subsequent response to the resident’s further reports, including whether further compensation is necessary. As such, the issues reported following the landlord’s final response will not be considered as part of this complaint, but a recommendation will be made for the landlord to do so.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.

The lease states that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property and for the maintenance of communal areas. The landlord’s repair policy states it does not apply to leaseholders, but it applies to communal areas it owns or manages. The policy does not provide timescales for responding to repairs. Its website categorises its repairs as emergency or non-emergency repairs.
The resident reported a water leak at the rear of the building on 29 March 2022. The report states that there were water marks on the ceiling. The records show that the repair was placed on a 21-day response time. The notes also state that the resident had requested an update on progress.
The records do not show what if any inspections or works were completed in response. Furthermore, the records do not show that the landlord updated the resident at this point. This was a failing in the landlord’s record keeping and therefore a failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its repairs works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. The lack of records means that this Service may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The repair records do show that the landlord raised a job with its roof contractor on 9 June 2022. The job requested that scaffolding was erected, and repair works completed to the chimney stack. It also requested an inspection of the roof. This was an appropriate response to the concerns about water ingress and the reported leaks. However, it was almost 3 months after the leak had been reported which was an unreasonable time frame. The landlord also failed to investigate and provide any explanation for its delays within its complaint response.
The repair works to the chimney were recorded as a 21-day standard repair. The records show that the works were completed on 29 September 2022 which was 113 days after the landlord raised the works in June 2022. This was not in accordance with the time scale that the landlord had allocated in its records. Again, the landlord failed to provide any explanation for its delays within in its complaint response.
Furthermore, the records do not show that the landlord had kept the resident informed during this period. This was another shortcoming in its handling of the matter. The resident had to contact the landlord in October 2022 to get an update as to whether the works to the chimney had been completed.
The next report of a leak was 2 months later after heavy rain fall on 21 December 2022. The report was made on the resident’s behalf by his letting agency. The letting agency asked how the resident could claim compensation given that it was unable to charge rent until the repairs were completed.
The resident then contacted the landlord himself on 22 December 2022. He expressed his concerns again about the damage and the fact that he was unable to rent the property because of the damage. The landlord appropriately advised him to claim on his landlord’s insurance if he had this. It explained that claims could be made to its building insurers, but this would only cover the resident, not any sub-tenants. This showed that the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns and the advice given was appropriate in the circumstances.
The correspondence then shows that the resident contacted the landlord again on 3 January 2023 to ask if the landlord could prioritise any inspection due to the continued rainfall causing more damage. The landlord attended the property to inspect on 19 January 2023. This was 18 working days after the resident had first raised the issue. The landlord failed to show how it had prioritised the repair or how it had communicated with the resident as to what action it was taking. This was a further failing in its record keeping which has been a continued failing identified in this investigation.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows the findings of its inspection on 19 January 2023. It said that it had requested a further inspection to be completed by its roofing contractors and that this would be organised in the coming weeks. The resident then chased the landlord for an update on 31 January and again on 2 February 2023. His communication evidenced that he had been informed in January that the water damage was due to roof problems. The landlord responded on 3 February 2023. It said that its roof contractors were intending to meet with the landlord at the property on 6 February 2023. It would then raise the necessary repairs.
The landlord’s roofing contractors provided details of their findings on 6 February 2023 to the landlord. The records again fail to show that the landlord contacted the resident to update him. The resident chased the landlord for an update again on 1 March 2023. The landlord explained that scaffolding had been left on site by the neighbouring property, so this needed to be removed first.
The landlord explained further within its stage 2 response that scaffolding had been left by its previous contractors who completed works in September 2022. The delays were caused because its contractor was unable to erect its own scaffolding and unable to safely use the scaffolding already in situ. It said that this was in part its fault due to the lack of timely post work inspections. This also evidenced that the landlord had not been monitoring/recording its repairs appropriately. If it had it would have known that the scaffolding had been left in situ.
The landlord acknowledged that the scaffolding had also been reported as being abandoned by several residents. It did not however explain what action it took in response to the reports. The correspondence shows that the old scaffolding was removed on 10 March 2023. The new scaffolding was erected on or around the 28 March 2023.
The evidence then shows that further inspections were required of the roof and a schedule of works was prepared. It is unknown however why it took a further 2 months for works to be completed on 12 May 2023. The complaint response does not explain this delay either. Furthermore, the records do not show what action the landlord took to expedite the matter and avoid any further delays. This was a failing in its handling of the matter with no explanation from the landlord as to what went wrong. By not identifying what went wrong it was unable to put matters right.
The records show that the resident had contacted the landlord on several occasions during this period for updates as to when works would commence. The landlord appropriately responded with updates. However, the records show that the resident had to continually chase the landlord. The landlord should have been proactive itself in ensuring that the resident was kept informed.
The landlord acknowledged that previous repair work had not been completed to an acceptable standard and/or had been limited in scope. It apologised for this failing which was appropriate. It further explained that works to a neighbouring property were also a contributory factor to the issues.
This response showed that the landlord had acknowledged some of its failings and considered what had gone wrong. Its learning was that the issues had been raised with its senior team. This was vague and lacked reassurance that the failings would not happen again. Further learning for the landlord has been considered in the order below.
The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s concerns about payment of council tax. It correctly signposted him to how he could claim a reduction. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord acknowledged that the works and assessment of works required to the roof had fallen short in the past. It also acknowledged that its failure to post inspect works had contributed to the delays and repeated issues.
The landlord considered how it could put matters right. It offered the resident £500 compensation for inconvenience, distress, time and trouble. This amount however does not fully reflect the failings identified in this investigation.
The resident had been reporting water ingress since March 2022. The landlord failed to show that it had been proactive in keeping the resident informed of the actions it was taking. This meant the resident had spent considerable time and effort chasing the landlord during both periods of the leaks. The landlord’s record keeping was poor, particularly in March 2022 which made it difficult to fully assess how it had handled the matter.
The resident had informed the landlord that the ongoing loss of income and damage to his property was causing him anxiety. He had to continue with the uncertainty of when the water ingress would be resolved for a total period of approximately 11 months which was unreasonable. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is made, and a series of orders are listed below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint procedure states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The timescale of 15 working days is therefore not compliant with the Code.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 15 working days. The stage 1 response acknowledged the length of time the repair had taken so far but it lacked curiosity as to why there had been delays. Its response failed to show any investigation into its handling of the repairs. By not investigating what had gone wrong it failed to put matters right. This was also a missed opportunity for it to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage.
The landlord’s comment that the repairs had not been completed to the resident’s satisfaction was unhelpful and dismissive. Particularly given that the second incident of water ingress had reoccurred within 2 months of the previous works. The landlord did set out what it would do moving forwards, but it failed to provide any timescales. By not doing so it failed to offer any reassurance to the resident that the matter would be resolved.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued within 25 working days. This was outside of its own timescales. The stage 2 complaint response did however go some way to putting the above failings right. It acknowledged some of its failings and set out its position.
The comments that it had requested an explanation for the delays from its contractor however did not show a meaningful assessment of how the failings had occurred. It was also silent on what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced inconvenience in raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, without receiving a detailed response.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns about the service charges. This was a failing but also a missed opportunity to set out its position and put matters right at a much earlier stage. This caused the resident time and effort having to pursue his complaint further. To put matters right this has been considered in the order made below.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. At both stages of the complaint there was a failure to respond within the timescales set out in the Code. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint response failed to investigate all of the matters raised and put things right. It is acknowledged that the landlord did consider redress which was appropriate. However, the landlord failed to show any learning from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory version of the Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £950. £500 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into his property.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to establish what his concerns are in respect of the service charges. It should then write to the resident to set out its position in respect of the resident’s concerns. A copy of this should be shared with the Ombudsman also within 8 weeks.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of this case to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
1. Whether it should review its repairs policy to include target timeframes for repairs
2. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store the works information accurately which reflect its own and contractor’s actions.
3. How it will monitor any follow up action and post inspections.
4. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated.
5. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 8 weeks.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord open a new stage 1 complaint to investigate its handling of the leak that occurred after May 2023. It should consider whether compensation is appropriate for any failings it identifies.