Clarion Housing Association Limited (202202489)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202489

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 October 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the communal staircase;
2. Handling of repairs to the roof of the building;
3. Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the ceilings in her property;
4. Recordkeeping and information management;
5. Complaint management.

Background and summary of events

The resident has lived at the property with her partner and child, since 5 November 2015. The property is a shared ownership, three-bedroom second floor flat. The building is a three-storey block that was built in 2011. The landlord is a housing association.

Relevant policies and procedures

The shared ownership flat lease states the landlord shall:
1. “maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and (in the event in the Landlord’s reasonable opinion such works are required) improve: the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the Building, the roof, foundations, joists and external walls of the Building and Service media [sic]” (para. 5.3(a)).
2. “maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and (in the event in the Landlord’s reasonable opinion such works are required) improve: the Common Parts [sic]” (para 5.3(c)).
3. “not be liable for any damage suffered by the leaseholder [sic] through any defect in any fixture, tank, Service Media, staircase, machinery, apparatus or thing in the Building or Estate or through the neglect, default or misconduct of any servant employed by the landlord [sic]” (para 6.2).
4. “have power at its discretion to alter the arrangement of the Common Parts provided that after such alteration the access to and amenities of the Premises are not substantially less convenient than before” (para 6.2).
The landlord’s planned investment (PI) policy states:
1. “Referrals are to be made by property services, housing and repairs staff (not from responsive repairs provider direct) to assets team, in accordance with the referral process. If works are allocated to planned investment (PI) teams, they will be added to the programmes of work”.
2. “Regular meetings (e.g. regional investment plan meetings) are to be held between assets/PI, housing, repairs and property services operational staff to discuss repairs trends, repairs programmes etc”.
The landlord has a PI referral procedure. The Ombudsman requested, but has not seen a copy of the procedure.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out response times:
1. Emergency: Within 24 hours.
2. Non-emergency: Within 28 days of the repair being reported.
The repairs and maintenance policy says that the landlord offers appointments for communal repairs in some areas. Repairs to communal areas must always be completed within 28 days.
The policy states that if a repair is considered uneconomical by a contractor, it can be referred to the landlord to decide if it should be added to the PI programme. Prior to the referral process, all repairs needed to keep an item safe and serviceable should be completed.
The landlord’s service level agreements (SLA) are:
1. Email escalation to planners 10 working days.
2. Email escalation to planners TL 5 working days.
3. Email escalation to area manager 5 working days.
4. Email escalation to surveyors 5 working days.
5. Call back request for area manager 3 working days.
6. Call back request for surveyors 3 working days.
7. Escalation to AM’s regional director 3 working days.
8. “Planned investment will respond to customer by end of next working day. Once the query has been passed to the contractors it will be 28 calendar day for a routine enquiry or 24 hours if emergency”.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Prior to 17 June 2022, its target response times were 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. If it was unable to adhere to these timeframes it would aim to keep the resident informed, explain the reasons why and provide a timescale for when it could respond.
Following a cyber-attack, the landlord introduced an interim complaints policy, This aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints received since 17 June 2022, within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days. For complaints logged before 17 June 2022, the landlord would contact the resident and “try to progress these through to resolution”. If it was unable to do this, it would manage residents’ expectations. The interim policy was due for review in November 2022. It was still on the landlord’s website on 18 September 2023.

Summary of events

According to the landlord’s records on 25 November 2019, it received a complaint from the resident about:
1. “Repair delays to the communal roof leak”.
2. “Outside communal stairwell”.
The landlord raised a work order on 14 January 2020, for “leak – trace and remedy the communal leak, there is water coming inside the staircase in both first and second floor and also water damage to the walls”. A note states, the resident had requested improvement works that required the landlord’s approval.
On 5 February 2020, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response, noting:
1. The resident had told the landlord the repair to the communal roof had been outstanding for a few years. The landlord tried to get the original developer to return, but it declined. A new roofing contractor was engaged. When the landlord spoke with the resident on 5 December 2019, she “confirmed the contractor was repairing the roof”.
2. The resident was concerned about the outside stairwell and a possible building defect. She said the stairwell had been covered with silicone, which had not stopped the water ingress and when wet it was very slippery. The landlord removed the silicone from the second floor on 18 December 2019. An inspection took place on 17 January 2020. “Due to the intricacies involved with this case, the technical services team are currently liaising with the PI team and external parties regarding a solution”. The landlord would provide a fortnightly progress update to the resident.
The landlord raised a work order on 16 June 2020 for, “pre-lockdown – sheet of tar has blown off the roof and landed on pavement. Water coming from balcony into communal area”. The job was closed on 19 June 2020 and a note stated, “water will come into communal balcony areas as open to elements”.
On 14 July 2021 the resident reported a “roof leak” in the corridor of her flat. She said that “previously we have dealt for 2 years with roof leak into our bathroom” and questioned whether the previous repair had been done properly. The resident provided photos and asked that the matter be treated as urgent. On 20 July 2021 the landlord said a contractor would contact the resident directly.
The landlord raised a work order on 23 July 2021, for “roof leaking affecting top floor flat”. An email note asked, “this is a relatively new build so I assume that roof is still covered under defects warranty, can you confirm?”. The job status is recorded as cancelled.
On 23 July 2021 the landlord confirmed an appointment for the leak had been raised, and said the contractor would arrange the time and date with the resident.
On 25 August 2021 the resident told the landlord that she was still waiting for an appointment to inspect the leak and for repairs to commence. She said that “we are ready to go forward and submit an official complaint”.
On 13 September 2021 the resident asked about the next steps on the roof repair. There had been a visit and photos taken, but no contact thereafter.
On 17 September 2021 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the roof. The landlord responded to say it had passed the query to the repairs team.
On 4 October 2021 the landlord apologised for the delay and said the issue had been escalated and an area manager would respond within 5 working days.
On 15 October 2021 the resident asked when the repairs would happen, and when the inside of her home would be painted. The landlord responded that it had chased the issue internally.
On 26 October 2021 the landlord said it was waiting for clarification from the surveyor “on whether the roof is still under warranty, as this repair may need to go back to the original contractor”. It said it was not responsible for internal repairs in the resident’s property and she would need to contact the insurance company. The resident then asked for the insurance company’s details.
The resident asked the landlord for updates on the roof repair on 13 September, 17 September, 23 September and 30 September 2021.
The landlord raised a work order on 3 November 2021, for “rain coming inside the building through open spaces, first and second floor. Water penetrating walls every time it rains”.
On 2 November 2021 the resident asked for an update and timeline for the roof repair and forwarded an email from the insurance company that asked for information from the landlord to progress the claim.
On 11 November 2021 the landlord said a surveyor would contact the resident directly. The resident responded on 18 November to say no one had been in touch and she needed information to progress the insurance claim.
On 26 November 2021 the landlord said an area manager would contact the resident within 3 days. The resident replied, saying she had been told previously, but no one had been in touch.
On 26 November 2021 the resident asked for the landlord to return her call. The landlord’s note says, “roof is leaking when it rains affecting leaseholder [sic] area manager wanted to know if us or defects as building is only six years old”.
On 6 December 2021 a landlord internal email said the resident was awaiting a replay and asked for this to be addressed to avoid a complaint. An email response asked for an inspection to be arranged and said it could not arrange a repair until it was confirmed if the roof was covered by a defects warranty”.
On 8 December 2021 an internal landlord email said there was “no leak at present”. The landlord had told the resident it was not responsible for redecoration, but that stain blocking a small area was a good idea to prevent complaints.
On 8 December 2021 the resident’s daughter had an accident on the communal staircase. According to the landlord’s records, it attended the site on 9 December 2021, “to investigate and complete ‘near-miss’ forms”.
On 12 January 2022 the resident asked for an urgent update on the roof as the insurance company could not enact repairs until the landlord confirmed its work was complete.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord said it had passed the resident’s details to an area manager, who would call her within 5 working days.
The landlord raised a work order on 13 January 2022, to “investigate roof leak”. A note stated, “job has been raised to inspect and quote for flat roof repair”.
On 20 January 2022 the resident told the landlord that her daughter had slipped on the wet staircase and that she wanted to submit an official complaint.
On 25 January 2022 the landlord completed a health and safety report after conducting ‘slip re-testing’ on the communal stairs. The “main focus area of this re-test was the tiling at the top of the stairway”. It found no signs of water ingress, but recommended a surveyor investigate damage under the first floor stairway. The reported concluded:
1. In the area tested there were no signs of water damage.
2. “The area poses a low risk of slipping”.
On 25 January 2022 the resident sent the landlord more photos of the stairs.
The landlord’s records show it tried unsuccessfully to call the resident twice on 26 January 2022. The landlord emailed acknowledgement of the complaint.
On 1 February 2022 an internal landlord email said, “the customer is correct” and that water ingress to the stairwell had been an ongoing matter. A former employee had concluded this was due to the block’s design, with gaps letting rainwater into landings on both floors. This made the whole area very slippery during rain fall. The former employee had advised that any design change would require planning permission and the homeowners would bear the cost.
On 2 February 2022 the resident’s husband told the landlord, “the issue [with water ingress into the stairwell] has been ongoing for three years”.
According to the landlord’s records, it attempted ‘update calls’ to the resident on 11 and 21 February 2022, but was unable to reach her.
On 2 March 2022 an internal landlord email said the neighbourhood team was unable to progress the issue and a request had been sent to see if the water ingress into the stairwell could be addressed via PI.
On 4 March 2022 the landlord told the resident that the “case [water ingress into the stairwell] has been escalated to one of our surveyors for review”.
On 5 March 2022, the resident sent the landlord photos of the stairwell. She said the insurance company was still waiting for the landlord to complete the roof repair.
On 10 March 2022 the landlord said a contractor would contact the resident directly.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response, noting:
1. It understood the complaint to be about a wet staircase outside the resident’s property and that the resident was seeking an investigation of the incident involving her daughter.
2. Following the incident on 7 December 2021, a safety assessment officer (SAO) attended on 25 January 2022. Tests were carried out and the area assessed as having a low risk of slipping.
3. There appeared to be no signs of an unlevelled floor or any water damage to the bricked walls and concrete floors. No remedial actions were identified.
4. Signs of water damage around the ceilings on the first floor were identified. This would be assessed as a separate matter.
5. There was a service failure with a delay in keeping the resident updated with the assessment while the findings were being reviewed. The landlord apologised and awarded £200 compensation, comprising £150 for time and trouble incurred by the resident, and £50 for the delayed complaint response.
On 20 April 2022, the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed as:
1. The compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate.
2. The incident in the stairwell meant her daughter was scared to use the stairs.
3. The assessment conducted after the accident was ineffective. It was conducted in dry conditions and did not check the area her daughter fell in.
4. Had the test been conducted correctly, the results would have been different.
On 25 April 2022 the resident told the landlord she was still awaiting a response about the roof repair.
On 5 May 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman as the leak remained unresolved.
The landlord raised a work order on 18 May 2022, to “investigate leak above [resident’s] flat”.
On 25 May 2022 The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about the roof.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord provided a copy of the stage 1 response, dated 5 February 2020 and confirmed that it had now raised a stage 2 complaint.
On 8 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that the leak remained unresolved.
On 28 June 2022, The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response by 5 July 2022. The landlord said it could not do this due to a cyber-security incident and would provide an update once its systems were restored.
On 29 June 2022 the resident told The Ombudsman that “the roof is still leaking and our daughter is terrified every time she walks [down] the stairs”.
On 22 July 2022 the landlord told the resident it would try to provide an update on its stage 2 response by 1 September 2022. It told the Ombudsman that due to an “ongoing cyber incident” it was unable to respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 23 July 2022 the landlord told the resident an appointment had been made for the leak repair. The time and date of the appointment was not specified.
On 27 July 2022 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to contact the resident urgently.
On 23 August 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman the landlord had not provided an update.
On 5 September 2022 an internal landlord email said, “resident is requesting to change the design of the building. Issue; communal staircase has glass elevation at the front of block and open plan at the back of property so when is raining communal staircase/landing becomes wet”.
On 6 September 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman she had emailed the landlord “almost every month”, but the landlord had not contacted her.
On 6 September 2022 a landlord internal email said aside from the contractor’s attendance in 2019, “we have no further known knowledge of a roof issue”. It was awaiting a response from a contractor and in the interim, had requested a roof inspection, “so we can identify if there is an issue with the roof or this is all the same issue with the communal staircase at the front of the block”. The email asked if the issue would be handled under “warranty defects” and by whom.
On 7 September 2022 the landlord inspected the communal staircase. The tests took place on a dry day and were conducted at the top of stairs and landing area. The report said:
1. People walk differently on stairs, compared to on flat surfaces.
2. A medium risk of slipping was identified, this was “tolerable due to the nature of use, not being subject to constant water or prolonged periods of use”.
3. Although not observed, it was possible ice could accumulate on the stair tiles during the winter.
4. Continued monitoring was recommended. There had “been 2 near misses by the same child in this area in the last 12 months, however this may be due to the way the child was walking [sic] rather than the surface of the stairs”.
5. It recommended that options to increase slip resistance and reduce water ingress be explored.
On 12 September 2022 an internal email said the landlord was “now satisfied that this building has been subject to a thorough investigation [sic] We recommend continued monitoring of this area, although a means of preventing rainwater ingress from the rear would be beneficial as the building is clearly experiencing a degree of water damage”.
On 12 September 2022 the resident sent photos to the landlord as following rain, water was now coming into her daughter’s bedroom. She said countless people had been to inspect, but no repairs had been done.
On 12 September 2022 a landlord internal email asked for an update as the resident had said an operative attended on 8 September 2022, but there had been no feedback. The email said the resident was on her to her solicitor.
On 12 September 2022 a landlord internal email said a visit took place on 8 September 2022. Speaking with the resident, “it becomes clear that the communal roof has been repaired/replaced last year [sic] Repair failed after a year and leak appeared in hallway ceiling”. The landlord conducted an inspection on 14 June 2022 and concluded the issue would be addressed with the contractor who carried out the original repair. The landlord did not carry out that roof repair. The roofing contractor had told the landlord it last attended in 2019.
On 13 September 2022 the resident asked for an update on the roof repair as a company had visited but had only taken photos.
On 13 September 2022, the landlord told the resident it would provide an update when it had spoken to the surveyor. The resident responded to say the matter had been ongoing since July 2021, the leak had gone into her daughter’s bedroom, was spreading and the wall in the corridor was starting to get wet. The resident asked why the surveyor had not written a report so that all parties could understand the position. The landlord replied, saying it was expecting an update regarding the roof issue within 24 hours, and would get back to her. The resident then asked the landlord to ensure whoever did the repairs last year returned and did the job properly, as she did not want to pay extra service charges because the work was done incorrectly the first time.
On 14 September 2022 the resident told the landlord “the rain is literally in our flat now”.
On 14 September 2022 an internal landlord email said the roof had been repaired in 2020. The property had been inspected on 14 June 2022. At that time the survey had advised that the issue would be addressed with the original contractor, but it had now been decided it needed to be treated as a new repair. There would be a joint visit on 15 September 2022 [with a different contractor] and after that the landlord should be able to make a decision about how to progress the repair.
On 17 September 2022 the landlord told the resident it had passed the roof issue to the repairs team.
On 20 September 2022 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a complaint response by 27 September 2022. The response was to address the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a leak from the roof of her building.
2. Response to health and safety concerns regarding the staircase in the building, after the resident’s child slipped on the stairs.
On 22 September 2022 the landlord told the Ombudsman it was unable to meet the response deadline.
On 23 September 2022 the landlord told the resident the roof issue had been passed to ‘repairs’.
On 26 September 2022 the landlord tried but was unable to contact the resident.
On 26 September 2022, an internal landlord email said:
1. There had been numerous complaints over the last couple of years about how wet and slippery the areas become when it rains.
2. It was not a repair or maintenance issue, “objectively, it might be described as a fault in design rather than anything else”.
3. As it had become apparent that water ingress was causing damage, “should the landlord be looking to design and implement improvements to cover these walkways and prevent ingress”, and was this something PI could take on?
4. There was a roof leak, but the warranty was invalidated due to previous repair work. The only way to ensure a resolution was to renew the roof and a full report and quote was being obtained. The landlord would then need to decide how to proceed and to fund the work.
On 26 September 2022 an internal landlord email said it could not give a date for the roof replacement and providing dates for interim repairs would be sufficient.
On 26 September 2022 an internal landlord email asked which surveyor visited the building on 25 January 2022, the outcome of the visit, and what information was shared afterwards.
On 27 September 2022 an internal landlord email said the resident “does not feel that temporary repairs are necessary”.
On 27 September 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman that she had not received an update from the landlord about the stairs.
On 27 September 2022, the landlord told the Ombudsman:
1. It was unable to provide a final response about the leak. Temporary repairs were arranged, but were cancelled as the resident did think them necessary.
2. The only way to resolve the issue was to renew the roof completely. It was currently awaiting a report and quote. Once received, it would review and decide how to proceed. It would maintain contact with the resident.
3. It was liaising internally to ascertain if it could take action to prevent the stairs getting wet. In the meantime, the complaint would remain open. It would communicate this to the resident and advise her of any progress.
On 30 September 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had passed the roof repair to the response team. The resident said she was told this 3 weeks ago.
On 3 October 2022 the resident told the landlord an operative had said he would do some temporary work to prevent water ingress, but this had not happened.
On 10 October 2022 the landlord told the resident it was obtaining a quote for a replacement roof. It said the operative did not attend as the resident told him she was not happy for temporary repairs to be carried out. The resident responded and said the operative had advised there was no point in temporary repairs as the work on the roof would start “asap”.
Following the resident’s email on 10 October 2022, a landlord internal email asked, “can we make every effort to push this roof repair”. A response said there was a forthcoming [undated] meeting with PI about the block.
On 11 October 2022 an internal landlord email said a referral to PI was needed to decide if further action was required in relation to the open walkways and water ingress”.
On 13 October 2022 a landlord internal email said that that PI would ensure an update to customers. “If we can state an update with be provided by year end, so March. This is very open ended at present until we get further information and understanding of need, feasibility and whether any recourse with architects etc or if any planned works are required”.
On 15 October 2022 the landlord told the resident that “we have chased the relevant department to get this issue resolved as soon as possible”.
On 17 October 2022 the landlord provided a stage 2 response, stating:
1. It apologised for the delay, which was due to a cyber-security incident.
2. It was satisfied its stage 1 response was fair and reasonable, and that the compensation awarded reflected the failures identified.
3. It was satisfied there had been a “thorough investigation” following the incident involving the resident’s daughter on the stairwell.
4. The September 2022 assessment recommended exploring measures to increase slip resistance and to prevent water ingress. The landlord would review if any further action was required and would communicate the results to residents by March 2023. In the interim there would be cosmetic repairs to communal areas.
5. In January 2020, a job was raised for work to the roof. The landlord thought this had resolved the leak as it received no further reports. After reports of “an active leak to the resident’s property”, an inspection took place on 14 June 2022. The landlord thought a work order had been raised for the contractor who carried out the previous repair to attend, but the order was not raised, which caused delays. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 8 September 2022, and “confirmed that the roof was leaking into the hallway and bedroom ceilings”. Due to the flat roof, the rain may be “tracking across the roof from any point”. The landlord was therefore “looking at the option of renewing the recovering in its entirety”. It had proposed an interim fix, but the resident did not want this. The landlord would review the case to determine if a full roof renewal is required.
6. It would “make good the ceilings and paint them” once the leak is resolved.
7. The resident would need for claim for any damaged items on her own buildings insurance. Any claim against the landlord required the provision of information to the insurance team.
8. In addition to the £200 compensation awarded at stage 1, the landlord awarded a further £650, comprising £50 for the delayed complaint response and £600 for the delay in the roof repair.
On 17 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord when the work to the roof would start and sent it a video of, “rain in our flat literally”.
On 20 October 2022 the landlord told the resident that all updates had to come from the PI team and that the team had written to her. The resident responded to say that she had not received any correspondence.
On 26 October 2022 an internal landlord email asked, “Please can you advise regarding the roof as the resident is chasing an update?”
On 31 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that “even after the quick fix [sic] we have still rain in the house”. She asked for the PI team to contact her and for the landlord’s insurance details.
On 3 November 2022 the resident said it was now the second winter with the current leak and that despite the temporary work, as soon as it rained the roof leaked. The landlord responded with contact details for the insurance query and said a regional maintenance manager would contact the resident.
On 14 November 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman that she was not satisfied by the landlord’s stage 2 response, because:
1. It lacked information about the history and duration of the issues.
2. The issues were not yet resolved.
3. The compensation did not reflect the scale of the issues.
4. She wanted the roof work done and a solution to prevent rain entering the staircase.
On 14 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord when the roof work would start.
On 15 November 2022 an internal landlord email said a referral for the roof had been made the previous day.
On 23 November 2022 an internal landlord email said the referral would be reviewed at the next RIP meeting. On 30 November 2022 an internal email asked when the next ‘RIP meeting’ would take place.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord said the PI team had been asked to contact the resident.
On 23 November 2022 the resident asked for an update on the roof. The landlord said the issue had been referred to PI, a decision had not yet been reached and it would provide fortnightly updates to the resident.
On 23 November 2022 an internal landlord email said, “Could you please make contact with PI today and find out what is happening [sic] can you contact the resident and provide an update. This needs to be diarised for fortnightly”.
On 30 November 2022 the resident told the landlord the leak reported in July 2021 was still ongoing and the insurance company would not act until the leak was resolved.
On 30 November 2022 an internal landlord email asked if the roof replacement would go ahead, how it would be funded and whether it was urgent.
On 2 December 2022 an internal landlord email asked for a specialist roofing company to provide a diagnosis report and quote for either renewal or repairs, as required.
The landlord attended the building on 8 December 2022.
A roof survey report dated 19 December 2022 said repairs were found indicating the roof area had failed previously and internal damage in the resident’s flat showed the roof was failing currently.
An internal landlord email on 20 December 2022, referring to the visit on 8 December 2022, asked if the leak affected other properties. It said referrals would normally only be considered once PI had received all evidence.
The landlord raised a work order on 20 January 2023, for “roof leak – potential new roof required to whole block. Block less than 10 years old”.
On 28 January 2023 the resident asked for an update on the roof as she had received the stage 2 complaint response, but no work had been started.
On 30 January 2023 the resident spoke to the Ombudsman and asked why the landlord had not gone “to the original builders” and if this invalidated the roof warranty, which could then impact on the service charge for the building.
On 30 January 2023 an internal landlord email sought an update on the roof referral. The response said that it would be reviewed at end of February/March.
On 31 January 2023 an external survey inspected the stairwell and found:
1. Rainwater was entering the first and second floor landings and is ponding on the surface of the landings.
2. There was no drainage from the landings.
3. It was likely that the ponding water flowed down the stairs creating a situation where the porcelain tiles used for the stair treads become wet.
4. It suspected the porcelain tiles were not suitable for use on this staircase.
5. Repairs should be “split into two categories, corrective measures and improvement works”.
On 2 February 2023,the resident told the landlord roof works had not started and asked someone to answer her question about why the builder who constructed the property was not asked to resolve the issue, and if using a different contractor would invalidate the building warranty.
On 2, 7 and 8 February 2023, internal landlord emails asked if anyone was addressing the resident’s email, if a response could be sent, and who was taking responsibility for the correspondence.
On 8 February 2023 an internal email response said the roof was not yet officially assigned to PI and it was suggested that “unless the leaks have got worse in [the resident’s flat] we hold off any further holding repairs until 13 February when we can expect the quotes and review further”.
On 18 and 20 February 2023, the resident asked for an update on the roof repair.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord said a ‘peer review complaint addendum process’ had been raised and it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
On 6 March 2023 the resident told the Ombudsman the roof still leaked, the landlord did not answer emails and had not provided an update on the stairwell.
On 7 March 2023 an internal landlord email asked for someone from the PI to contact the resident. In response, on 7 March 2023, an internal landlord email said it was still completing “the pre-enabling works at this stage” and once quotes had been reviewed and approved, and the works were formally included within the programme, it would communicate this to all stakeholders, including the leaseholders.
On 13 April 2023 the landlord provided an addendum to its stage 2 response, noting:
1. It “had instructed the repair works to the roof”, but needed to finalise pre-commencement works. Once the works were agreed the landlord would update the resident on the anticipated timeframes.
2. An independent survey of the staircase had now reported and was being reviewed. The landlord would update residents if any works were required.
3. It was satisfied the correct approach had been taken to assess the stairs.
4. The compensation offered at stage 1 and stage 2 was appropriate. It offered a further £50, in recognition of a “response published outside of SLA”.
On 12 May 2023 the landlord told the Ombudsman that “the timeframe for completion of the works is unknown”.
On 1 September 2023 the landlord told the Ombudsman:
1. The roof was completely renewed in July 2023.
2. The landlord’s partnering contractors carried out the work.
3. A meeting was booked for 31 August 2023 to review issues with the staircase.

Assessment

Response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the communal staircase

The landlord responded to a previous complaint about the staircase on 5 February 2020, and said it was liaising with internal and external parties “regarding a solution”. This investigation has seen no evidence of the landlord exploring a solution to the issue in the period between the complaint response and the resident reporting her daughter’s accident in December 2021.
The landlord attended the building on 8 December 2021 and completed ‘near miss forms’. It carried out the health and safety assessment 32 days later. This investigation has not seen the initial accident report nor the ‘near miss forms’. In view of the wider issues around the staircase, which are touched on below, the landlord could have considered expediting the health and safety assessment.
On 1 February 2022 a landlord internal email said that water ingress into the stairwell was an ongoing issue. It said a former employee had advised the issue was a result of building design and any change would require planning permission and incur cost to homeowners. This investigation has not seen a contemporaneous record of this advice, or what the landlord did as a result.
The same email said that the whole staircase area became “very slippery during rain fall” and that “gaps let rainwater into [the] landings on both floors including corridors and stairwells”. It is therefore unclear why the ‘slip tests’ were conducted on a limited area and in dry conditions.
The resident was concerned the assessment was conducted in dry weather and that it had not checked the area where her daughter slipped. The landlord failed to respond to these concerns, nor did it provide an explanation as to why it had conducted the test in the way it did. The landlord acted unreasonably in not responding to the resident in a timely manner and not addressing her concerns when it repeated the health and safety assessment.
A landlord internal email on 5 September 2022, said the “resident is requesting to change the design of the building [sic] we are not able to change design”. This was not the case, the resident was requesting her daughter’s accident be investigated and for the stairs to be made safe, she was not prescribing the solution. The landlord’s correspondence suggests it focused on the impossibility of altering the building structure, rather than establishing what the issues were and the available options. A landlord email on 26 September 2022, said “there had been numerous complaints about how wet the areas get”. It appears therefore that the issue was longstanding and recognised. This again underscores the need for the landlord to have acted sooner to explore the mitigations that were available.
While the landlord acted reasonably in undertaking a second inspection, it was unreasonable that it did not do this sooner. It is also unclear why, in the September 2022 tests, it appears to have replicated the previous assessment, and again conducted these in dry conditions.
The September 2022 report recommended continued monitoring of the stairs. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that monitoring did not take place. This was unreasonable.
The external survey of the stairwell reported its results on 31 January 2023 and the landlord promised it would update residents by March 2023. It did not provide the promised update and instead, on 13 April 2023, it wrote to the resident to say it was reviewing the report and would update residents if any work was required. This was unreasonable.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged it failed to keep the resident updated with the safety assessment, it did not identify any failings in the conduct of the investigation or any learning points. The landlord offered £150 compensation for the delay. At the time of this investigation, the issue remained unresolved. The compensation offer was not commensurate with the time and trouble, as well as the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Taking all factors into consideration there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the communal staircase.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the building

The resident reported the leak on 14 July 2021. The landlord raised a work order on 23 July 2021, however this job was cancelled. It was not until 13 January 2022 that a work order was raised to investigate the roof leak. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs to communal areas must be completed within 28 days. It was inappropriate that it took the landlord 184 working days to raise the necessary work order.
There was an lack of oversight of the roof issue by the landlord. Evidence seen by this investigation shows there was a leak previously, however it is not clear if this was resolved, or if the leak abated temporarily and the landlord assumed, in the absence of reports to the contrary that the leak was fixed. This investigation has seen no repair records that demonstrate the resolution of prior leaks and confirmation that a lasting solution had been affected.
It was not until June 2022, 13 months after the resident’s report of the leak that the landlord decided to engage the contractor that carried out the repair originally. When the landlord conducted its stage 2 investigation, it transpired that an order for this work was never actually raised.
The landlord’s inability to establish the status of the roof warranty added significant delay. It was not until September 2022, 14 months after the resident reported the leak that interim repairs were instigated. There was confusion around these repairs. The landlord said the resident refused the work. The resident however, said she was advised that repairs were pointless as the roof renewal would begin shortly. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if the repairs took place. A message sent by the resident on 31 October 2022, saying that “even after the quick fix we still have rain in the house”, suggests some work was carried out, although this investigation has not seen contemporaneous records. The confusion around the interim repairs is indicative of wider communication and recordkeeping issues, which are examined later in this report.
In September 2022 the landlord decided to treat the roof issue as “a new repair” that would be considered within a PI programme. There was a lack of understanding within the landlord about the decision making process and timelines of the PI programme. This meant staff could not provide meaningful information to the resident. The resident was told on 20 October 2022 that all updates would have to come from the PI team. These updates did not happen, meaning the resident continued to speak with staff who did not demonstrate an understanding of the PI process and who were unable to elicit information from the PI team.
It took 2 years to diagnose and rectify the issues with the roof. Over this period, the resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions. Her enquiries often went unanswered and when the landlord did respond, it was to say that a contractor, surveyor, repairs team or district manager would be in touch. The majority of this promised communication did not take place. The landlord consistently failed to meet its SLAs on response times. The resident struggled to elicit any meaningful information from the landlord. It did not explain the process by which the roof would be assessed, work commissioned and the timeline for this, nor did it answer the resident’s queries about the roof warranty.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it understood the effect the disrepair was having on the resident and her family. On 23 November 2022 a landlord internal email stated the resident would be provided with fortnightly updates, however these were not delivered and the resident continued to have to chase the for updates. These remained open ended and imprecise. This lack of clarity and the seemingly open ended nature of the issue contributed to the resident’s distress.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the roof was renewed in July 2023. Although the landlord did eventually affect a resolution to the leaks, it responding too slowly, delayed and mismanaged interim repairs and failed to communicate with the resident. The landlord did not apologise for the unreasonable length of time it took to resolve the issue and it is not clear that the landlord has learnt from the outcome. Although it offered the resident £600 compensation this was not commensurate with the time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Taking all factors into consideration, there was maladministration in regard to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the building.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the ceilings in her property.

The damage to the ceilings in the resident’s property was a result of the roof leak. The landlord told the resident it was not responsible for redecoration, and she therefore sought to pursue a claim with her own insurance company. As set out previously, the roof repairs and renewal were subject to significant delays. In the absence of repair to the roof, the resident was unable to progress the repairs to the ceilings for a period of at least 2 years.
The landlord’s handling of the roof repairs has already been addressed. There are a number of points that are however, pertinent to the consideration of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the ceilings:
1. The resident’s insurance company required a report from the landlord that the roof works had been completed. The landlord did not engage with the resident’s repeated requests for updates on the roof repairs, in order that she could communicate these to the insurance company.
2. The landlord initially rejected the resident’s request for the ceiling to be stain blocked. A landlord email on 8 December 2021, suggests it changed its position, “to stop any complaints”.
3. While the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response, that it would “make good the ceilings and paint them” once the leak was resolved, it was unreasonable that its delay in responding to the resident’s concerns caused the resident to incur time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
Although the landlord was not obligated to redecorate the ceilings, it acted reasonably in offering to do so. It is notable that it committed to do so after the resident contacted the Ombudsman. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s request for information in a more timely fashion. Taking all factors into consideration, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the ceilings in her property.

Landlord’s recordkeeping and information management

The landlord struggled to establish if the roof was under warranty. The status of the warranty was raised internally, but without answer, on 14 July 2021, 26 October 2021, 6 December 2021 and 6 September 2022. Although it was reasonable that the landlord sought to establish the status of the warranty, it is concerning that this information was not known, particularly as the roof had failed previously. Had the landlord had robust record management practices in place, this information should have been readily available.
An internal landlord email sent on 6 December 2021, stated that it was, “not allowed to repair the roof until Housing confirm if the roof is still covered under defects warranty”. The landlord’s inability to establish the status of the warranty delayed repairs by 14 months. It was not acceptable that because of the landlord’s recordkeeping failures the resident incurred the distress and inconvenience of an unresolved leak into her property.
On 26 September 2022 an internal landlord email clarified the warranty was invalidated due to previous repair work. This investigation has not seen any contemporaneous records of those repairs. It is concerning that the landlord undertook work that invalidated the warranty and that this was not documented.
According to the evidence seen by this investigation, surveys or inspections appear to have taken place, or have been commissioned in June 2021, September 2021, December 2021, January 2022 and September 2022. However, this investigation has seen no contemporaneous records from these and has only been provided with 1 report, dated 19 December 2022.
This investigation has found multiple instances of failure by the landlord to capture, record, or utilise held data so as to maximise the quality of its operations and service delivery to the resident. For example:
1. A work order on 14 January 2020, stated that the requested improvements to the stairwell had to be referred to the landlord. This investigation has seen no evidence as to how this was resolved.
2. When the resident told the landlord on 8 September 2022 about the previous failed roof repair, the landlord did not appear to have had prior awareness of this.
3. On 26 September 2022 a landlord internal email sought to ascertain which surveyor visited the resident’s building on 25 January 2022 and to establish what happened as a result.
4. An internal email on 1 February 2022 refers to advice from a former employee about the impact of the design of the stairwell. This investigation has seen no contemporaneous documentation of that advice.
The handling of the staircase and roof repairs displayed issues in relation to the interface between PI and the wider landlord organisation. In both cases, the landlord’s records show each issue was flagged as needing to be referred to the landlord for an investment decision, however there is an absence of documentation as to whether this took place and how any decision making was made.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations.. The absence of effective recordkeeping prevented the landlord from fulfilling its repair obligations in a timely fashion and caused detriment to the resident. The landlord may also come to rely on its record keeping as evidence of action taken, decisions reached, or assessments undertaken to name a few examples. Taking all factors into consideration, there was severe maladministration in regard to the landlord’s recordkeeping and information management.

Complaint management.

Following the resident’s complaint on 25 August 2021 the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint and instigated its complaint process, however it did neither. The resident restated her request to submit a formal complaint on 18 November 2021, and this was again ignored by the landlord. It is unclear why, on each occasion the landlord failed to instigate its complaints process.
Correspondence seen by this investigation sets out the landlord’s desire to avoid a complaint. On 6 December 2021 an internal landlord email sought “to avoid an official complaint being put in”. A subsequent email on 8 December 2021 recommended the application of a stain block in the resident’s property, as “this will stop any complaints”. It is concerning that the landlord did not use the resident’s complaint to resolve the issue, and failed to engage with both the substantive issue of the roof and with the resident’s complaint.
As the leak was unresolved and her complaint was unacknowledged, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. The landlord responded to the request that it issued a complaint response, by providing a stage 1 response that had been issued in February 2020, for a different complaint. It also said that it had raised a stage 2 complaint. This was contrary to paragraph 5.11 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which stipulates that a landlord must only escalate a complaint once it has completed stage 1 and at the request of the resident.
On 26 January 2022 the resident complained about the communal staircase in the building. The landlord responded on 29 March 2022, which was 35 days beyond its target response time. This investigation has seen no evidence that the landlord explained the delayed response or provided a revised timescale.
The landlord said it understood the resident to be seeking an investigation of her daughter’s accident on the communal staircase. It was reasonable for the landlord to address this request by reporting the results of the slip testing of the communal stairs and setting out why it considered the area to be ‘low risk’.
The resident was dissatisfied with the investigation and the complaint response and on 20 April 2022, requested a review. The landlord provided a stage 2 response 125 working days later, citing a cyber security incident for the delay. This was unreasonable, as the landlord should have issued its stage 2 response prior to the introduction of its interim complaints policy on 17 June 2022. This investigation notes that as of 20 September 2023, the interim policy remained on the landlord’s website.
As the resident had raised concerns about the initial health and safety investigation the landlord acted correctly in undertaking a further investigation and communicating the results in its stage 2 response. There were however a number of issues with the complaint response:
1. It did not demonstrate how, in assessing the staircase the landlord had considered the history of the issue. On 26 September 2022, a landlord internal email said there had been “numerous complaints” from residents about the staircase. It is unclear if, or how these affected the landlord’s decision making. This was contrary to the paragraph 5.4 of the Code, which states that “where the problem is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint”.
2. It did not address the resident’s concern that the area where her daughter slipped was not tested. This omission could have had potential health and safety implications. It was contrary to paragraph 5.6 of the Code, which states that a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint.
3. It did not share the recommendation in the investigation report that there should be ongoing monitoring of the staircase area.
4. It said the stage 1 response was “fair and reasonable”, however it had not provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about the roof leak.
5. It did not demonstrate that it had conducted a robust investigation of its handling of the roof leak. It did not account for why it took 11 months to conduct a roof inspection, and 14 months to confirm the leak into the resident’s home.
6. It focused disproportionately on the resident’s refusal of temporary roof repairs. This risked giving the incorrect impression that the resident was responsible for the ongoing roof issues.
7. It did not set out how it proposed to deliver a lasting resolution to the roof issue. The landlord failed to communicate how it would consider the case for roof renewal and a timeline for this.
It is unclear why the landlord instigated a peer review complaint addendum process as a third complaint stage. The landlord’s interim complaints procedure does not include a third stage. Contrary to paragraph 5.17 of the Code, the landlord has not set out as part of its annual assessment against the Code why it believes a third stage to be necessary.
Paragraph 5.18 of the Code stipulates that “complaints should only go to a third stage if the resident has actively requested a third stage review”. As the landlord had not provided a timeline in its stage 2 response for when it would address the roof issue, the resident was seeking this information. The resident did not request a stage 3 complaint review.
The stage 3 review added little, if any value. The landlord provided it 18 days beyond its stated target delivery date. It again failed to provide a timeline for the roof renewal, failed to set-out how the landlord would affect an enduring resolution to the staircase issue and did not include a robust investigation of the landlord’s prior complaint handling.
The landlord did acknowledge some complaint handling failures and offered the resident £100 compensation. However, given the scale of the failures the level of compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures and did not constitute appropriate redress.
The landlord failed to provide a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about the roof. It failed to use the complaints process to deliver a lasting resolution to the issues raised by the resident and did not act in accordance with the Code. Taking all factors into consideration, there was severe maladministration in regard to the landlord’s complaint management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the communal staircase.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the ceilings in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s recordkeeping and information management.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint management.

Reasons

The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of its health and safety assessment of the staircase. It did not demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s concerns in the context of prior complaints and internal advice. The landlord did not communicate with the resident in a timely and helpful manner and the resident had to continually chase the landlord for information.
The landlord took an unreasonable length of time to assess, diagnose and remedy the roof issue. A lack of oversight and a lack of understanding of the planned investment process, caused delay and were detrimental to the resident. The resident had to continually chase the landlord for information and the landlord routinely failed to meet its SLAs on response times.
The landlord acted reasonably in offering to redecorate the ceilings in the resident’s property, however it took an unreasonable length of time to respond to the resident’s enquiries and to affect the repairs.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it had effective recording keeping practices that supported it in fulfilling its repairs obligations. It was unreasonable that it took 14 months to establish if the roof was under warranty. This and the absence of contemporaneous records of investigations, surveys and inspections contributed to the unreasonable length of time it took the landlord to address repairs issues.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it conducted thorough investigations of the resident’s complaints. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the roof leak. The landlord’s complaint responses did not comply with the Complaint Handling Code. The landlord failed to use its complaint process to deliver a timely and lasting solution to the issues raised by the resident. The compensation offered to the resident was inadequate.

Orders

The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks of the date of this report and no later than 14 November 2023, to:

Apologise to the resident.
In addition to the £850 compensation offered in its stage 2 response, the landlord should pay a further £1300 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord should therefore pay the resident a total of £2150 compensation. This should be paid to the resident and not into a rent or service charge account.
Write to this Service with confirmation that it has carried out the redecoration of the ceilings in the resident’s property.
Write to this Service, either confirming that it has reverted to its normal complaints policy, or setting out when it will do so. If, at the time of writing the interim policy (effective 17 June 2022) remains in place, the landlord should explain why.

Within 2 months of the date of this report and no later than 17 December 2023, the landlord is ordered to:

Write to this Service and set out how it intends to affect a meaningful solution to the issues identified in the January 2023 report on the communal staircase. This should include a timetable for key deliverables and for how it will communicate effectively with residents.
Write to this Service and set out the measures it will implement to ensure the planned investment process and team interfaces effectively with contractors, maintenance and repairs, customer service, housing officers, residents and other stakeholders.
Review its recordkeeping and information management and write to this Service :
1. Setting out where and how its current policies and processes conform to the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
2. Identifying where its current policies and processes do not conform to the recommendations in the KIM report and how it will bring about compliance.