Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202128113)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128113

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

28 November 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress at his property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property that the resident’s complaint relates to is a fifth floor, two-bed flat. The resident was temporarily moved into another flat within the same building as a result of ongoing water ingress. He has now permanently moved into a third flat within the building, as the water ingress has not yet been resolved.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the Ombudsman notes the resident had previously informed the landlord that he has anxiety and depression.

Policies and procedures

Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates a statutory obligation for the landlord to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation for the duration of the tenancy. Fitness for human habitation is measured by reference to specified criteria, including repair and freedom from damp.
The landlord must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says the landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard.
The landlord’s repairs policy says the landlord will deal with repairs in the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours;
2. Urgent repairs should be completed within 3 working days;
3. Routine work should be completed within 20 working days;
4. Planned repairs should be completed within 40 working days of an inspection.
The policy also says that communal repairs which affect a large number of residents will be given priority.
The landlord had a 3 stage complaints process at the time of the resident’s complaint. Stage 1 was an attempt to resolve the complaint immediately. If this was not possible, the landlord would progress the complaint to stage 2. The policy said stage 2 responses must be given within 20 working days, and stage 3 responses within 20 working days of the escalation request.

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. When referring his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns about the condition of the temporary property he was moved into. He has since raised concerns about the landlord’s decision not to offer a home loss payment when he moved from the temporary property to a new permanent home in the same building, and that the water ingress has now spread to his new flat. Those complaints had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time this complaint was referred to the Ombudsman, so the Ombudsman cannot consider those concerns as part of this investigation.
The resident has also mentioned that the condition of the property, and the way the landlord handled the water ingress, has affected his mental health, and could potentially have harmed his physical health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health or wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

Summary of events

On 20 June 2020, the landlord recorded that a new roof was needed to resolve water ingress in another flat in the block.
The landlord’s repair logs state that it arranged a further roof inspection on or around 7 December 2020 after it received more reports of water ingress into that flat. The roofer found “ponding” in multiple areas, with no signs of where the water was getting into the building. The logs said the water ingress was linked to periods of heavy rain, and the landlord needed to source a fibreoptic camera to inspect the rainwater downpipes which were encased in concrete or boxed in. It said once it had the camera it would check the pipes for any leaks, damage, or blockages which could be causing the water ingress.
On 14 January 2021, the landlord recorded that it was trying to source a camera long and thin enough to go through the drainpipe, which was proving difficult. Its notes stated it would inspect the roof again once it had sourced the necessary camera.
On 22 January 2021, the landlord received reports of water ingress in two further flats, and other areas of the building. It said it could not go on the roof due to the weather, but would carry out the relevant works when it was safe to do so.
On 31 March 2021, the landlord inspected the water ingress into one of the other flats. It recorded that it was aware that multiple flats were affected and it had further tests lined up, but it could not safely get on to the top of the block at that time due to the weather.
The landlord received reports of water ingress affecting multiple flats in the block throughout May 2021. It logged an urgent follow-on repair for a roof inspection on 10 May 2021.
The resident reported water ingress into his flat on 12 May 2021. The landlord’s repair records state that his bathroom ceiling was bulging from a leak, and it carried out a same day repair to make the area safe. It marked the repair as ‘practically complete’.
On the same day, the landlord sent an internal email which suggested the occupiers of the flat above may have caused the leak from the way they were bathing. The landlord has provided no evidence to support that conclusion, and stated the suggestion was made because the occupiers were ‘an African family’. It asked a housing officer to speak to the neighbours to rule the possibility out.
On 19 May 2021, a roofer inspected the property. The landlord’s repair logs say the roofer replaced some tiles above one of the flats. The landlord has provided no notes of what inspections were carried out at the time.
On 20 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report an uncontrollable leak coming through his ceiling. The landlord’s notes say it told the resident it was aware of issues in multiple properties and had asked a building surveyor to identify the source. It said the resident’s flat would be inspected after that stage, with his inspection booked for June 2021.
On 21 May 2021, another resident reported significant water ingress from the roof affecting multiple properties, including the resident’s flat.
The landlord’s records say an inspection went ahead on 2 June 2021. It has not provided any inspection notes, reports, or any other details of the inspection to the Ombudsman.
On 9 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to ask if any works had been raised following the inspection. The landlord said it had no notes of the inspection.
On 16 June 2021, the resident chased the landlord for an update on the repairs again. The landlord told the resident that it had been notified that external works needed to be carried out, but it held no information about internal works. It said it could not provide the resident with any timescales.
On 18 June 2021, the landlord received the results of the inspection, and raised a works order for a new ceiling in the resident’s property. It has provided no evidence of updating the resident at that stage.
On 24 June 2021, the landlord received reports of water ingress into another flat. Its notes say that works to stop the water ingress were due to go ahead, but would be complex. It said a specialist contractor and external crane would be needed to complete the works.
In July 2021, the landlord received multiple reports of water ingress into various flats, and noted that the water ingress only happened when it rained. The landlord’s notes do not show any action being taken in response at that time, and note that a specialist contractor would be required. It has not provided any evidence of trying to source the relevant contractor or equipment.
On 13 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident following an enquiry from a councillor. It said one of the surveyors had requested further investigations and that it had raised a job for investigations in the resident’s flat. It said it had been notified of further damage on that day, including a visible damp patch on the kitchen ceiling, part of the kitchen ceiling coming down, and the resident having no working light in his bathroom as a result of the water ingress. It said it would inform its repairs team.
The landlord logged a repair on the same day for a plasterer to visit the resident’s property. The landlord marked the repair as complete on 19 July 2021. It has provided no notes from the contractor related to the inspection or repair, and has not shown that it had provided the resident with updates prior to the councillor’s involvement.
On 3 August 2021, the resident reported that more of his bathroom ceiling had come down as a result of the water ingress. The landlord logged a make safe repair on 5 August 2021, which was cancelled at the resident’s request. The resident said that the issue was not dangerous, but was unpleasant.
On 6 August 2021, the resident reported significant water ingress due to rain. He told the landlord he had been told by the repairs call centre staff not to report the issues as it would be a waste of time, and the landlord would carry out the repair when it could. The resident asked why it was taking so long to get any work started, and noted that 7 different contractors had inspected the ceiling already.
The landlord’s internal emails from the same date said it was only carrying out emergency and urgent works, that the majority of planned works were in a backlog, that there were delays due to COVID-19, and that it had made a decision not to carry out any planned works and only provide an emergency service.
On 13 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said there was a surveyor inspection booked for 1 September 2021, and that it could give the resident no timescale for the works until it reviewed the outcome of that investigation.
On 18 August 2021, the resident told the landlord that while he tried to never look at his ceiling, there was mould and fungus growing in the cracks. The landlord logged a repair for a contractor to clean the mould and fungus.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that a building survey was carried out on 1 September 2021. It has not provided a copy of either the survey report or any other notes of the inspection to the Ombudsman.
On 5 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to thank it for an update. He said it was interesting the issue may be from another property, as he had previously been told the issue was rain. It is not clear from the evidence provided what update the landlord gave the resident, or when that update was provided.
On 6 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to ask what the surveyor found at the inspection. The landlord replied that a surveyor was due on site the following day. The resident also asked for an update on his complaint.
On 9 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the complaint. It told the resident that a survey had taken place on 1 September 2021, that further investigations were taking place the following week, and that it would update the resident at that stage.
On 10 September 2021, the landlord carried out a further inspection, and updated the resident. It said the water ingress was caused by a redundant pipe which allowed rainwater into the building. It said a temporary repair would be carried out the following week, and a more permanent repair would be carried out later.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord told the resident it had carried out the temporary repair, but it would not know whether the repair had worked until residents reported whether there were ongoing issues with water ingress.
On 15 September 2021, the resident reported that rainwater was going into his bedroom overnight, and that fungus had been growing in the property again. On 24 September 2021, the landlord told the resident it was speaking to a surveyor and roofing supervisor to see what further investigations were needed. It told the resident it would update him during the following week, and would arrange for contractors to clean the fungus from the bathroom.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord told the resident that a roofing contractor would attend the following week, and that it would provide an update after that visit.
On 1 October 2021, the landlord decided that all residents affected by the water ingress would be offered temporary alternative accommodation.
On 3 October 2021, the resident told the landlord that water was coming in through his bathroom ceiling in multiple places, that he had 4 buckets out trying to catch all of the water, there was no lighting in the bathroom, and that the rain was getting worse. He told the landlord he ‘was utterly fed up’ of the situation, and that it was affecting his mental health.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord told the resident it was aware there was a lot of water ingress, and it was offering temporary moves to those affected until it could resolve the issue. The resident told the landlord he did not want to move out of his home, and the real solution would be to fix the water ingress and damage. He asked why the repairs were taking so long, and requested temporary lighting for the bathroom. He told the landlord he was 99% sure he would not want to move, but asked where he would be moved to.
On 4 and 5 October 2021, the landlord replied to various queries from the resident. It said:
1. If he moved it would be to another property, and he would be expected to take his own furniture with him. It said this would only be temporary until the repairs were completed.
2. It had received his complaint, but could not discuss compensation or provide a response until the issues were resolved, or it had dates for the works to go ahead.
3. The delays were the result of finding an issue, repairing it, and then finding there was further water ingress, meaning further investigation was needed. It said causes of water ingress are not easily found in a multi-storey block, and in this case there appeared to be multiple causes.
4. It would not provide temporary lighting for the bathroom.
5. The occupiers of 2 other flats had been moved, and it could not say from the repairs logs how many operatives had attended the property.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord recorded that there was heavy water ingress going through the electrics on the fifth floor of the building.
On 6 October 2021, the landlord told the resident it had three potential properties to move him to, and it would carpet the bedroom and living room of the properties as it was temporary accommodation. The resident advised he would think about the temporary move, but was concerned about making sure the buckets collecting water in his flat would be regularly emptied. He also asked if the landlord would pay for temporary lighting if he sourced it himself. The landlord’s records show it paid for the temporary lighting the resident had sourced that day.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord sent the resident photos of a possible temporary property. The resident asked for more information about furniture and access to his existing flat. The landlord gave the resident a list of furniture it would provide, asked if there was any other furniture he would need, explained that there would be a heating charge at the property, and advised he would be able to access his old flat, but that the repairs team would need a set of keys. The resident declined the temporary move as he said he did not want to pay the heating charge, or for the repairs team to have a set of keys to his existing property.
On 13 October 2021, the landlord carried out a further inspection of the building. Its records said it would need access to multiple flats to investigate further, so would arrange that access.
On 14 October 2021, the resident asked the landlord to send a cleaning crew to clean up new fungus that had grown as a result of the water ingress. On 18 October 2021, the landlord raised a works order for a cleaning crew.
On 22 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again. He said the site office had been handed back, and asked if he could be temporarily moved into it. The landlord investigated this possibility. Its internal emails over the following week say that the office had not been handed back yet, and a significant amount of work would be needed before anyone could move in, including works to make it safe. It concluded that the property could be shown to the resident, but repairs would be needed before he could move in.
On 28 October 2021, the resident told the landlord that the cleaning crew had not yet attended to clean the fungus. He also said that moving forward he would be contacting the landlord for monthly updates on the repairs.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord showed the resident around the site office. The resident confirmed that he was happy to move into the site office on a temporary basis until works were completed, as long as the landlord carried out certain repairs.
On 4 November 2021, the landlord received an update from its building surveyor. The surveyor said that major investigative work was needed to the block, and the water ingress had spread to more properties. They said they needed to access the boxed-in areas of all bathrooms to carry out further tests, and they would need to remove the bathrooms in every flat to facilitate access.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to provide an update. The resident said the water ingress was not too bad at that time, as there had not been much rain. The landlord’s notes show that its cleaners attended that day to remove the fungus from the property.
On 23 November 2021, the landlord told the resident that moving into the site office was not an option at that time, as additional works were needed. It gave the resident an update on the works required the following day.
On 30 November 2021, the resident told the landlord that more of the bathroom ceiling had fallen down, and that it was unpleasant to clean up bits of the ceiling every time it rained heavily. On 2 December 2021, the resident asked the landlord to remove the ceiling after further water ingress, to prevent him having to clear up any more of it. The landlord arranged for the entire ceiling to be removed, and updated the resident.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord asked the resident for an update on the water ingress. He said there had been significant water ingress over the weekend, and it had been necessary for him to put 5 buckets out to catch the water. The landlord offered to arrange for a hotel for the resident while the weather was bad. It said there was no completion date for the works, so offered to look for any other suitable empty flats for a temporary move. The resident declined alternative flats, and the landlord arranged for the resident to temporarily stay in a hotel.
On 8 and 9 December 2021, the landlord reviewed the ongoing issues. Its notes said:
1. A surveyor had indicated a few weeks before that all residents would need to be moved. This was because the landlord would need to access the ducts in every flat to inspect the service pipework, and it could only gain access by removing the bathrooms.
2. It had managed to inspect the ducting in some flats, and identified that the ducts contained asbestos.
3. The roof was likely to be the main cause of water ingress. The contractors who had inspected the roof were unable to carry out the works, and any action would be a ‘sticking plaster’ until it could replace the whole roof.
4. There was no timescale for either the full repairs or a temporary repair.
On 15 December 2021, the landlord updated the resident on the works. It said when the works began his flat would be a building site, so he would not be able to access it. It said the site office would be ready the following week, and discussed the process of moving the resident’s belongings, and the possibility of a permanent move, with the resident.
On 21 December 2021, the landlord updated the resident. It said carpets were being put down in the temporary property on 10 January 2022, and it was trying to arrange removals for the following day. The landlord’s notes state that the resident said he might refuse access for repairs if he was unable to access his belongings while works were going ahead. The landlord told him it could arrange some access for his belongings, but only if it was urgent, and it would need to be supervised. The resident indicated that the ongoing issues were affecting his mental health, so the landlord offered to speak with his father instead if that would help.
On 23 December 2021, the resident signed a temporary license agreement for the old site office. The license agreement noted that his previous property was uninhabitable due to water damage. On 29 December 2021, the resident told the landlord he no longer needed the hotel it had arranged.
On 31 December 2021, the resident reported that water was pouring into his bathroom, and the ceiling was unsafe. The landlord’s records say it attended the same day for a make safe repair. It has not provided any details of what works it carried out or steps it took.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord reviewed the progress of the works in the temporary flat. It also noted that the resident had confirmed he would stay in the temporary property, but go into his flat daily to empty the buckets that were catching the water.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord arranged for the resident to move into the temporary flat at the end of the month. It noted that the resident did not want to move the items from his kitchen and hallway until a start date for the works had been confirmed.
On 19 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. He said he refused to move into the temporary property until there was a start date for the works. He said he was prepared to put up with poor conditions in the flat until then, and would arrange his own removals when there was a start date.
On 27 January 2022, the resident made a further complaint. He said:
1. His property was uninhabitable, and this had been ongoing since May 2021. He had only received any assistance since October 2021, and it was unacceptable he had to live that way for so long.
2. There was a lack of support and communication from the landlord, and the issues had caused damage to his property and health.
3. He had to put buckets out to catch water, mop constantly, and put towels out to block water getting into the hall. When away from the flat, he was worried about rainfall. This made his anxiety and depression worse, and he also had the stress of having to move to temporary accommodation and then move back in.
4. There was no confirmed date for major works to start or finish.
5. He wanted compensation for having to pay rent during the ongoing situation, the damage to his property, the expenses and time incurred drying out the carpet and washing and drying towels, and the damage to his mental health.
6. He wanted written notification of works to be carried out, the start date, and a schedule of progression.
On 3 February 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident’s mother. She said there was no electricity in the temporary flat at that stage, so the resident would never have been able to move in. The landlord asked which issues were still outstanding with the temporary flat, and said the start date for the works would follow, as a further survey was needed.
On 7 February 2022, the landlord reviewed the case. It noted that there had been little progress or change in months, and while the work involved would take time to plan, it should be explaining the steps taken, plans for progress, and timescales to the residents to prevent further frustration.
On 14 February 2022, the landlord noted, while investigating the resident’s complaint, that it was still awaiting full details of the works needed from the surveyors. It said its initial investigations indicated there was an issue with the roof covering and breakages in the shared pipework.
On 17 February 2022, the resident’s mother confirmed that the resident would not move into the temporary flat until there was a start date for the works.
On 11 March 2022, the landlord received a further complaint from the resident about the water ingress and resulting damage to his property. It added the complaint to the existing complaint from August 2021.
On 24 March 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said there had been ongoing water ingress since May 2021, which had caused severe damage to the walls and ceiling of his bathroom, as well as the electric lighting. He said this had also led to damp and mould in the property.
On or around 29 March 2022, the resident moved into his temporary accommodation.
On 1 April 2022, the resident reported that the water had started dripping from the kitchen ceiling in his original flat, and the lights in the kitchen had also stopped working. The landlord’s internal emails show it noted that the resident had already moved out of the property. It therefore asked its repairs team to isolate the electrics.
On the same day, the resident contacted the Ombudsman again. He said the situation with his flat was continuing with no meaningful outcome, and he did not feel he had been given adequate explanations for why the issue occurred, or for the delays in fixing it. He added that:
1. He had been living without any lighting in his bathroom since June 2021, which was unsafe.
2. He had to do a lot of thinking on behalf of the landlord, such as sourcing battery-powered lighting.
3. When offered temporary accommodation, the landlord only offered unfurnished properties, and he had to identify the site office as a temporary property himself.
4. Prior to a new officer taking over the case, there had been a lack of communication and updates. More transparency and communication would have eased the burden on his mental health.
5. Having to use the toilet and bathroom in the dark while rain poured in was extremely unpleasant and cold, and he was concerned about the potential impact on his health. As time passed, more of the ceiling fell down, and fungus and black mould grew around the bathroom.
6. His anxiety and depression had worsened throughout this time, and there was still no confirmed date for works to start.
7. He felt the landlord should refund all rent paid since May 2021 until the date he could move back into his property.
On 28 April 2022, the landlord issued its initial response to the complaint. It said:
1. It apologised for the lack of communication. It said it was not its intention to provide no updates, but it was waiting for information from surveyors and specialists.
2. It had made all residents aware when a surveyor would be attending the block, and when the next update would be available.
3. The water ingress was a complex repair which affected a number of properties, and investigations can take a long time. Since the resident reported the water ingress, it had arranged for numerous operatives, surveyors, and specialists to attend the block and carry out inspections.
4. It initially believed there was an issue which was isolated to pipework in the bathroom area, but after further investigation it believed there was an issue with the roof.
5. Due to the resident’s living conditions, it was agreed that alternative accommodation would be offered. Accommodation had previously been offered, but as the resident had chosen to remain in the property it had arranged for a mould wash in the bathroom, and for temporary lighting.
6. The resident had temporarily moved to another flat in the block, and the landlord had arranged help with moving his belongings.
7. It was confident it had identified the cause of the water ingress, and was working with contractors to plan the works. It would update the resident moving forward, and discuss compensation once the works had been completed.
On 10 May 2022, the landlord told the resident that it needed to restrict access to his flat for safety reasons. It noted that he had full access to another property while it was not in use, and asked him to remove any remaining belongings. It confirmed it would arrange removals for him, and that he would have no access to the flat until the works were completed. It explained it did not currently have a timescale for the works as the scale of the works made timescales difficult, and that residents were being offered permanent moves as a result.
On the same day, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said he was dissatisfied with the response and the lack of information regarding timescales, steps taken so far, and the cause of the issue. He said he had chosen his flat for a reason, and had been required to move into temporary accommodation with no indication of how long that would last.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord issued its stage 3 response to the complaint. It repeated the information about the works from the stage 2 response, and added the following:
1. Major investment works were needed to resolve the issue, which impacted on its ability to provide additional information and updates on progress.
2. As it was unable to offer a timescale for the works, it had discussed permanent rehousing with the resident. The resident chose to be temporarily rehoused until the works were complete.
3. The scale of the investigation and works meant it would not be feasible to provide the resident with a full series of actions by the numerous experts involved, but there were no unnecessary delays such as a lack of staff resources or availability.
4. It would be replacing the roof and soil stacks to resolve the water ingress. It expected works to take place that financial year, and the works were in the planning stage. There were also further steps it needed to take, for example surveying the soil stacks, which could not go ahead until it had removed asbestos.
5. It accepted that temporary rehousing did not lessen the distress caused. It offered £1,100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
6. It referred the resident to its insurers regarding damage to his belongings and carpets, provided a claim form, and confirmed a housing officer could help the resident with the claim.
On 8 June 2022, the resident responded to the stage 3 response. He said it was factually inaccurate as it said he had only reported the water ingress since August 2021. He also said he felt the compensation was insufficient.
On 15 June 2022, the resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 16 May 2023, the landlord reviewed the compensation offered, at the resident’s request. It increased the compensation offered to £2,000.

Assessment and findings

Repairs – timescales and communication

When the resident reported water ingress in May 2021, the landlord arranged for a same day repair to make the ceiling safe until more substantial repairs could go ahead. This was a reasonable first step to take. However, the landlord’s records show that there were significant delays, and a lack of communication, from that point onward.
When first investigating the water ingress in May 2021, the landlord suggested that the issue was caused by the occupiers of the flat above ‘bathing in a way that water is coming in the ceiling’. It has provided no evidence to support that conclusion, basing it only on the occupiers being ‘an African family’.
When attempting to determine the cause of water ingress, it is essential for a landlord to base its assessment on evidence rather than on assumptions, stereotyping, and othering based on the ethnicity of its residents. Despite being aware of water ingress affecting the building since at least June 2020, and its records demonstrating that it was aware the water ingress had been spreading to multiple flats within the building, the landlord initially chose to assume, without evidence, that the cause of the water ingress in the resident’s flat was the bathing habits of his neighbours. This was inappropriate.
Following the initial make safe appointment on 12 May 2021, the landlord has not shown it gave the resident information about any steps it would take to prevent the water ingress until he contacted it again to report an uncontrollable leak through his ceiling. At that stage, the landlord explained that it was aware of issues with water ingress within the building, had requested a surveyor inspection, and explained when the inspection of the resident’s property would be. It was reasonable to provide the resident with that update, but the landlord has provided no explanation for why it did not explain the wider issues with water ingress, and its ongoing investigations, when the resident first reported the water ingress in his property.
It is apparent from the information the landlord has provided that this was a complex repair affecting a number of properties within the building. This was then made more complex due to the age and structure of the property, and the need for a range of specialist contractors and equipment. When a major and complex repair is needed, it can be reasonable for a landlord to add the repair to its planned works programme rather than carrying out a full repair at that stage. This is because of the amount of works, specialist contractors, and funding that would need to be arranged.
However, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide regular, meaningful and ongoing updates to residents when it is unable to complete a repair in the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It should also take steps to identify and carry out any interim repairs to prevent ongoing damage, and limit the impact on its residents. When it is unable to take effective temporary measures to limit the impact on its residents, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out a full and lasting repair as soon as possible, rather than adding the repair to a planned works programme.
In this case, the landlord has provided no notes or reports from the majority of its inspections. It has therefore been difficult for the Ombudsman to determine what actions the landlord took and when, and whether the actions taken following the inspections were appropriate and in line with the recommendations of its contractors and surveyors. It has also provided no evidence of any attempts to identify and carry out temporary measures to prevent ongoing water ingress from the roof prior to September 2021. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence from the landlord’s surveyors or contractors to show there were no possible temporary measures to resolve the ongoing and worsening water ingress either before that point, or after the temporary repair to the pipework did not resolve the issue in September 2021. In the absence of that evidence, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord acted reasonably.
The landlord told the resident that there were no unreasonable delays on its part, and that the time taken to carry out the repairs was as a result of it identifying an issue, taking steps to resolve that issue, and then having to carry out further investigations when the water ingress continued. However, this is not supported by the evidence provided.
The evidence provided shows that some of the delays in carrying out the works were out of the landlord’s hands. For example, it was unable to carry out works or inspections on the roof during wet and windy weather for safety reasons. Its records also show there was difficulty in finding a contractor able to carry out some of the works, and it could not gain access to inspect the ducting until it was able to remove the bathrooms in various flats, and then remove any asbestos before it could survey the relevant pipework. However, there were delays which were avoidable, and caused by the landlord.
Following the inspection in June 2021, the landlord identified that a specialist contractor and crane would be required. However, it has provided no evidence of attempting to source the relevant contractor at that stage. Its internal emails from August 2021 stated that there were delays due to COVID-19, and that it had made a decision not to carry out any planned works. That decision was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, or with the Government advice that it ‘was expecting many landlords to resume external planned maintenance works’ from 18 May 2020 onwards. As such, the landlord has provided no reasonable explanation for why it did not attempt to arrange the relevant works at that time.
The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord was aware that the roof needed to be replaced to prevent water ingress in June 2020, but it has provided no explanation for why it took no steps to replace the roof at the time. Its records show it booked further inspections in December 2020 and May 2021, but these were following additional reports of water ingress rather than part of a plan to replace the roof. This demonstrates that the landlord was reactive rather than proactive regarding the roof repairs. While the resident’s flat was not affected by the water ingress until May 2021, the landlord’s records show that the water ingress in the building had been ongoing for around a year by that point, and had been spreading to a number of flats.
The Ombudsman cannot conclude, based on the evidence available, that the landlord could have entirely avoided the water ingress spreading to the resident’s flat had it replaced the roof in June 2020. However, it is reasonable to conclude that, had the works and any further inspections started at that time, the landlord would have been able to provide more meaningful updates to the resident on the scope of the works and the timescales for those works by May 2021 (had the water ingress still affected his property).
The evidence provided also shows there were multiple failings in the landlord’s communication around the repairs. While the landlord significantly increased its updates and improved its communication from September 2021 onwards, it gave limited information and updates to the resident before that stage. This led to the resident needing to chase the landlord for updates. When it did provide updates, it did not adequately explain the potential scope of the works or the reasons for delays, leaving the resident with the impression that nothing was being done. While the landlord may not have been able to confirm a full timescale to the resident, it was aware that the works would not go ahead imminently, and could have explained that to him.
The landlord internally acknowledged that there were a number of months without any progress, and that it needed to give regular, meaningful updates to residents, including details of steps taken, plans to progress the works, and timescales. However, after acknowledging the need to do so, and that doing so would reduce the resident’s frustration, it still did not do so. It has therefore not shown that it has learned from the situation.
Overall, while there were some delays which were out of the landlord’s control, or were inevitable given the complexity and nature of the works, the landlord has not shown that it took all reasonable steps to progress the works. It did not demonstrate any sense of urgency in resolving the water ingress, or treat it as an urgent repair. Instead, it treated it as planned works and chose to put those works on hold for a number of months, despite the significant levels of water ingress and resulting property damage being reported, and the significant detriment this caused the resident. It also failed to appropriately update the resident, effectively manage the resident’s expectations, or explain the potential scope and duration of the works to the resident at the time.

Repairs – offers of temporary accommodation

While the landlord appropriately offered the resident temporary accommodation until the works were completed, it did not do so until October 2021. This was despite the resident having reported that there was significant and ongoing damage to the property, including black mould and no light in the bathroom, and the landlord being aware that it did not have a start date for any works. It has provided no evidence to explain why it did not consider decanting the resident at an earlier stage. Instead, it chose to leave the resident in a damp-filled property with significant water ingress, two collapsing ceilings, no light in the bathroom, and in which he had to collect water in buckets each time it rained, for a number of months before it considered temporarily moving him.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident initially refused to move into temporary accommodation when it was offered at the beginning of October 2021, as he did not want the repairs team to have a key to the property he would temporarily be leaving. However, at that stage the landlord had provided no information as to how long it expected the repairs to take, no start date for works, and no evidence it was working to any monitored schedule of works. It is apparent from the relevant correspondence that the resident was not left with an accurate impression of the potential scale and duration of the works.
It is not for the Ombudsman to speculate as to whether the resident would have taken the initial offer of temporary accommodation had the landlord given adequate information about the nature of the works and the potential timescales involved. However, it is clear from the information provided that the landlord missed the opportunity to both manage the resident’s expectations, and provide the information necessary for him to make a fully informed choice as to whether to move into temporary accommodation.
When the resident heard that the site office had been handed back to the landlord, he asked if he could move there temporarily. The landlord appropriately investigated the possibility, and offered the property to the resident once the office had been handed back and various works had been carried out. This was a reasonable step to take.
While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident felt the landlord should have offered him the site office as temporary accommodation without him needing to suggest it, the landlord’s records show it acted reasonably. This is because the resident had previously indicated that he did not want to move out of his property, the site office had not at that stage been returned to the landlord, and when it was returned it needed works to go ahead before it could be occupied. Given that some of the works identified included safety-related works such as asbestos removal, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable that the landlord waited until the safety-related works were complete before allowing the resident to move into the temporary property.
In the meantime, the landlord arranged for the resident to stay in a hotel when the weather worsened, to minimise the impact the ongoing water ingress had on him. This was a reasonable and appropriate step to take until the temporary accommodation was ready. When it was ready, the landlord updated the resident, agreed a moving date, and arranged for a removal company to move the resident’s belongings to the other property. While the resident did not move until a few months later, that was the resident’s decision rather than the landlord’s, as he was unwilling to move until the landlord confirmed a start date for the works.
Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate the impact on the resident by offering temporary accommodation, carrying out works to make the site office ready to become temporary accommodation, and arranging for the resident to stay in a hotel when the weather worsened but his temporary accommodation was not ready. However, it missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations and explain the scale and potential duration of the works. It should also be noted that while a move to temporary accommodation could mitigate the impact on the resident, such a move would not mean there was no further distress or inconvenience experienced by the resident, especially when no timescales were given for the water ingress to be resolved, and for him to be able to move back into his home.

Repairs – detriment to the resident

The landlord has acknowledged that there were delays in carrying out the repairs, and that its communication was inadequate. It has offered the resident £2,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Having considered the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman does not consider that the compensation offered was sufficient redress. As a result of the landlord’s failings, the resident was left in a property the landlord later deemed ‘uninhabitable’ for a number of months before any alternative accommodation was offered. The property had significant and ongoing water ingress which led to two ceilings falling down, both black mould and fungus growing in the property, and a loss of any lighting in the bathroom from June 2021 onwards. The resident lived in those conditions for months before the landlord offered any alternative accommodation, with no adequate explanation of what it was doing to resolve the issues.
As a result, the resident had to spend significant amounts of time mopping up water, collecting water in buckets and emptying those buckets, cleaning up debris from the falling ceiling, and having to use the bathroom with no light, despite having concerns for his safety in having to do so. When the resident initially requested temporary lighting for the bathroom, the landlord refused to provide it. It has given no explanation for this, and its refusal was inappropriate and unreasonable. It only paid for temporary lighting when the resident sourced the lighting himself, demonstrating an ongoing failure to take proactive steps to mitigate the impact of the water ingress on the resident.
From October 2021, the landlord’s response to the ongoing issues improved significantly. In addition to improving its communication, it offered the resident temporary accommodation to provide him with an alternative to living in the above conditions. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident may have had reasons for choosing to decline the offer of alternative accommodation, it must take into account that at least part of the distress and inconvenience experienced from that point onwards was no longer a direct result of the landlord’s failings, as appropriate alternative accommodation which was not impacted by the water ingress had been offered by the landlord.
Having said that, it is important to note that a move into temporary accommodation would not mean that any distress and inconvenience would come to an immediate end, particularly when there was no communication about when works were likely to start or finish. When the resident moved into temporary accommodation, some of his possessions were left in his property, making it more difficult to access his belongings. The landlord also took no proactive steps to arrange for the buckets collecting water in the property to be emptied, meaning that the resident felt obliged to continue emptying the buckets himself to prevent further damage to the property and building. This would inevitably have led to further inconvenience.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £2,500 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for serious failings which accumulate over a long period of time, and which have a significant impact on the resident. This figure takes account of the delays in the roof repair which were within the landlord’s control, the condition of the property and impact on the resident as a result, and the time the resident spent chasing the landlord for updates.

Complaint handling

The resident first made a complaint in August 2021. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it was required to issue a response within 20 working days. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it was required to do so within 10 working days. It issued its initial response on 28 April 2022, which was 8 months later. This was a significant and unreasonable delay which was not in line with either its internal complaints process or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
When the landlord issued its initial complaint response, it told the resident that it could not consider compensation until it had carried out the works. However, it did not need to wait for works to be carried out to determine the relevant level of compensation, and its decision to do so was one of the reasons the resident escalated the complaint.
While the landlord issued its final response within the timeframes set out in its policy, the contents were inaccurate. For example, it stated that the resident had first reported issues with water ingress in August 2021. This indicates that the landlord did not properly investigate the resident’s complaint. It also told the resident that there were no unnecessary delays as a result of lack of staff resources or availability. As set out above, the evidence does not demonstrate this was the case. As such, it was not reasonable for the landlord to say that in its complaint response.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to ensure that it properly investigates complaints within a reasonable timescale, and that its complaint responses are accurate. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial complaint until 8 months later, and its final response was inaccurate, meaning the resident needed to contact it again to point out the inaccuracies in its complaint response. The landlord’s actions amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There were unreasonable and avoidable delays in resolving the water ingress at the property, which caused significant detriment to the resident. While the offer of temporary accommodation and the provision of a hotel were reasonable steps to mitigate the impact on the resident, those offers should have been made sooner. The lack of adequate communication, updates and timescales for works added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s initial complaint response was significantly and unreasonably delayed. While its final response was issued within a reasonable timeframe, that response was inaccurate, leading to the resident having to contact the landlord to correct its response.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology must come from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident £2,900 compensation (inclusive of the £2,000 previously offered). This is broken down as follows:
  1. £2,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reported water ingress.
  2. £400 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to all of its tenants in the block regarding the water ingress and ongoing works. Its letter must include:
1. A summary of the cause of the water ingress;
2. The steps it has taken to resolve the issue;
3. The further steps it needs to take to resolve the issue, and when those steps will be taken;
4. A commitment to update all of its tenants in the block regarding the progress of the works on a monthly basis;
5. A request for information on whether the tenants have been impacted by the water ingress and, if so, how they have been impacted.

The landlord must provide a copy of the letter to the Ombudsman.

The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.