Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Cornwall Housing Limited (202010641)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010641

Cornwall Housing Limited

11 February 2022


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlords handling of the resident’s report of leaks from his roof.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident’s partner is a secure tenant of a bungalow. The couple have had a range of disrepair issues in their home since 2014.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident first reported a problem with a leak coming through to his kitchen ceiling from the roof in August 2014. This caused staining and damage to the kitchen ceiling and light fittings. The resident reported the same issue again in June 2016, March 2019, June 2019, November 2019, January 2020 as well as the two reports in June 2020 and October 2020 which are the focus of this investigation.
  3. There have been many visits made since 2014 to fix leaks and carry out other remedial work such as repainting, replacing tiles and inspections. The leak has caused repeated damage to the kitchen ceiling and light fittings. In addition to the disruption caused by the leaks themselves, the resident says the repeated visits have caused a lot of disruption, stress and frustration. He has made a separate complaint regarding operatives not wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during Coronavirus restrictions. 
  4. The resident has complained previously and on 17 July 2018, a panel of residents made a finding of bad practice by the landlord and upheld a disrepair complaint made by the resident. As a result, the resident was awarded compensation and amongst other actions taken by the landlord, his kitchen was redecorated in September 2018.
  5. The resident made a report of water coming through from the roof to his kitchen ceiling on 12 June 2020.
  6. On 23 June 2020, the resident made a complaint regarding the failure to repair the leak. The resident said the landlord had not responded to his report on 12 June. The resident said that the problem went back to the previous year. Lights in his home were filling with water and needed to be replaced.
  7. The landlord’s repair records suggest that the tenant reported that the ‘overflow of the water tank was constantly running’ on 24 June and the landlord attended an appointment to repair the overflow tank on the same day.
  8. A further appointment was made on 30 June to ‘assess the roof leak’ first reported on 12 June and the landlord said a repair job to ‘rectify the roof leak’ was completed on 1 July 2020. The resident disputes that the leak was adequately fixed and says it was the same leak that had occurred in 2014.
  9. The landlord responded informally to the resident’s complaint of 23 June via email on 2 July 2020. The landlord explained what actions it had taken in response to the resident’s report and the resident did not escalate his complaint further at the time.
  10. Follow on works to repaint and replace the kitchen ceiling were completed on 16 July 2020.
  11. On 4 October 2020, the resident reported another leak from the roof. The landlord was in contact with the resident by phone on 20 October but did not send an operative until 28 October 2020 to carry out repairs.
  12. On 28 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord again regarding the lack of response and the landlord logged a formal complaint. The resident told the landlord he was dissatisfied that it had not responded more urgently to his report of a roof leak since it had taken them nearly one month to attend. 
  13. The operative attending on 28 October 2020 found a small hole in a batten in the roof. Some tiles were replaced and the operative said he would return to check the success of the work and do further repainting. 
  14. On 12 November 2020 the landlord responded at stage one of its complaints procedure. The landlord clarified the chronology of events since he reported the first leak in June 2020 and apologised for the trouble and inconvenience. The landlord said it would try and learn from its mistakes and improve the level of service provided.
  15. On the same day, the resident said he was not satisfied with the outcome of the stage one complaint and requested escalation to the next stage of the complaints procedure. The resident did not accept that the leak had been adequately repaired and on 13 November 2020, the resident made a request under the Freedom of Information Act asking for records of all repairs carried out at his home. The resident also approached his local elected representative for assistance.
  16. On 27 November 2020, the resident was sent an initial warning letter under the landlord’s unreasonable customer behaviour policy which it said was due to excessive contact and a ‘scattergun approach’ to his emails and dealings with staff.
  17. On 16 December 2020, a panel of three tenants met to determine the resident’s complaint as per stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The complaint was split in to three categories. These were roof repair, overflow tank repair and complaint handling. The findings of the panel were as follows:
  18. The panel upheld the resident’s complaint regarding the roof repair and awarded £250 compensation. This was comprised of £150 which it said was in line with its compensation policy on roofing complaints and an additional £100 for the ‘stress and additional time taken to resolve the problem’. 
  19. The panel recommended that if the fix (of the hole in the batten) did not work, the roof was to be replaced. The panel asked to be kept informed about this.
  20. The panel did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding the overflow tank as it said this was repaired within a reasonable timescale by the landlord.
  21. The panel upheld the third part of the complaint regarding complaint handling. The panel recommended that the landlord ‘diarise when a complainant is to be contacted again to avoid more frustration’.
  22. The panel recommended the landlord review its strategy on re-occurrent repairs.
  23. The resident remains dissatisfied with the way his complaint has been handled and the amount of compensation offered by the landlord. The resident has approached this service for assistance.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has long-standing concerns regarding the landlords handling of disrepair in his home. The evidence seen by this service and the findings of the previous panel on 17 July 2018 show these concerns to be well-founded since the resident’s complaints were upheld and significant compensation was awarded at the time.
  2. However, this assessment will focus on the period from June 2020 when the resident made his report of a leak until the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 16 December 2020. Although it is recognised that the historical factors are of significance in terms of the overall stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, the role of the Ombudsman is to assess how the landlord responded to the reports of a leak in these instances and how it handled the subsequent complaint.
  3. It is recognised that the historical factors and the recurring nature of the leak have increased the distress experienced by the resident and this should be taken into consideration. However, given that there have been other complaints made about these matters and other compensation awards have been made previously, it would be unfair to consider these matters for a second time.
  4. There are limits on how far back an investigation can go as residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  5. Under Section 11 1a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Landlord has an obligation to ensure the ‘structure and exterior of the dwelling house’ is kept in good repair. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will generally respond to routine repairs within 20 days. The policy specifies a number of repairs which it will aim to carry out faster. This includes listings for responding to continuous overflow from a tank within 24 hours and responding to rain penetration in a roof within 24 hours.
  6. Over the period of the complaint, there were two reports of leaks one in June 2020 and one in October 2020. According to the landlord’s repairs records, the report of the overflowing tank was not made until 23 June and it responded on 24 June within 24 hours. This explains the findings of the residents panel who were satisfied that the landlord had responded promptly to the overflowing tank.
  7. However, it is not clear why the landlord considered the initial report of water ingress to the kitchen ceiling from the roof on 12 June 2020 to be less urgent. The landlord appears to have responded to this matter as a routine repair rather than as something more urgent. Given the history of disrepair at the property, the landlord should have responded more urgently to the situation and there is evidence of delay since the implication of the landlord’s repair policy is that it will respond within 24 hours to water ingress from the roof which is the issue that was raised on 12 June.
  8. There is clearer evidence of delay regarding the second incident of a leak in October 2020. Again, it was almost a month before the landlord responded. The panel referred to this as ‘additional time taken to resolve the problem’ and it formed part of the compensation offer. It is not disputed by the landlord that there was delay from the report on 4 October 2020 to when the landlord attended to repair the issue on 28 October 2020. There was therefore a delay of 23 days since according to the landlords repairs policy, the landlord commits to respond to rain penetration from the roof within 24 hours.
  9. The resident disputes that the landlord has carried out an effective repair. The resident says that the hole that was found was three metres away from where the staining occurred and is worried that the leak will re-occur. Given that the landlord believes the issue to be resolved and has also made a commitment to replace the roof entirely if problems do persist as the resident fears, the landlord has satisfied its repair obligations. However, given the length of time that has passed since the panel met, it is appropriate for the resident and the panel to be updated on this issue and a recommendation about this has been made below.
  10. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was £250. This comprised £150 for the roofing complaint and £100 for stress and delay. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will generally award compensation on the basis of high, medium or low impact. The amount of £250 is equal to the maximum award for medium impact where the landlord has accepted full responsibility.
  11. The landlord has acknowledged service failure in the form of delay for the second roof leak in October 2020 but it has not taken into consideration the delay that occurred from 12 June 2020 to 30 June 2020 for the first leak. In recognition of this, and in the interests of trying to put things right in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, the amount of compensation in respect of the roofing complaint should be increased by a further £150 to take account of the additional delay that occurred in June 2020.
  12. In consideration of the resident’s personal circumstances and the previous history of the case, the landlords additional payment of £100 for stress and inconvenience is reasonable and in line with Ombudsman guidance. The landlord has acknowledged a need to learn and communicate better with complainants. It is noted that the landlord did not respond formally to the residents first complaint in June, choosing to respond informally on 2 July. It is reasonable to conclude that had the landlord responded quicker and communicated better with the resident, there would not have been a need for him to adopt a ‘scattergun approach’ to chasing up his complaint.
  13. The total amount of compensation should therefore be increased to two payments of £150 for each roofing repair failure and a further £100 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident making a total compensation payment of £400.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of leaks in his home.  

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to repair the roof promptly in June 2020 and October 2020. The landlord has attempted to put things right by offering financial compensation but the level of redress offered was inadequate as it did not take in to account the service failure that occurred in June 2020.

Orders and Recommendations

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident £400 compensation (minus any compensation already paid) and confirm compliance within four weeks.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident and the residents’ panel to confirm their intentions regarding the possibility of replacing the roof if there have been any further problems with water ingress.