The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Harlow District Council (202226119)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226119

Harlow District Council

31 May 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs needed to the roof and guttering.
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 2 bedroom maisonette, where she has lived since 2013. The landlord is a local authority, which owns and manages the property.
  2. On 26 July 2021, the resident reported a leak from the guttering above her property. The landlord’s repair log shows it registered the report but did not complete any works.
  3. On 31 May 2022, the resident reported that her guttering was allowing a significant leak onto her balcony. The landlord’s repair log notes show it registered this report but closed it on 17 October 2022 without completing any works.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 6 September 2022, in which she said:
    1. She had reported a split in the guttering several times since July 2021 but the landlord had taken no action regarding this.
    2. The split guttering caused her balcony to flood and water to enter her property, which had caused damage to her property and carpets. This also trickled to her neighbour’s flat below when there was a heavy downpour, which affected the neighbour’s electrics.
    3. The landlord had told her that the issue was on a repair program, which would take 9 months from 6 September 2022. She was unhappy with this because she had first reported the issue in July 2021.
    4. She wanted the landlord to explain the delays and the reasons it had not attended when she had reported the issues. She also wanted the landlord to fix the issue promptly.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 September 2022, and confirmed it would send a response by 20 September 2022. However, it wrote to the resident again on 20 September 2022 confirming its response would be delayed due to the amount of enquiries it had been receiving. It confirmed it would send the resident a response as soon as possible.
  6. On 20 October 2022, the resident reported that a tile had slipped on the roof and this had led to water leaking through the ceiling. The landlord’s repair log shows it raised a repair job for this, but it then cancelled the job on 21 October 2022 without completing any works.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2022, in which it said:
    1. It had raised a roofing job on 26 July 2021, which was during a period of “extreme weather conditions”. Its contractors had completed an inspection and confirmed scaffolding was needed. This was to be “programmed in amongst other priorities”.
    2. It had added the resident’s more recent report of the slipped tile to the existing job. It was looking to erect scaffolding in December 2022 for the required works.
    3. It sincerely apologised for the delay in completing works and any inconvenience caused, and it was upholding her complaint.
    4. The resident could request an escalation to stage 2 of its complaints process within 28 days if she was dissatisfied with the response.
  8. The resident requested a stage 2 escalation on 12 December 2022, but the landlord said she needed to raise a new stage 1 complaint because it had been more than 28 days since it had sent its stage 1 response. In her escalation request, the resident said:
    1. The works had not yet started, despite the landlord telling her these would begin in December 2022.
    2. She was unhappy with the landlord’s policy of residents needing to raise a stage 2 complaint within 28 days of the stage 1 response. The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 3 November 2022 told her it would commence works in December 2022. Its policy did not allow enough time for her to know if the works would begin in the timescale promised.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 December 2022. It sent another stage 1 response on 3 January 2023, in which it said:
    1. Although it had erected scaffolding in December 2022, it could not proceed with the works due to heavy snowfall. The work for the guttering had been “programmed for January 2023 among other priorities”.
    2. It had been inundated with reports of water ingress in different properties following heavy rains. Its repairs team had been working through the reports, prioritising the most urgent.
    3. The requirement for residents to raise stage 2 escalation requests within 28 days of its stage 1 responses was part of its complaints policy.
    4. It had followed the correct processes in relation to this matter, but due to “the sheer volume of similar works and enquiries”, the process had taken longer than expected. It was upholding her complaint due to the delays.
    5. The resident could request an escalation to stage 2 of its complaints process within 28 days if she was dissatisfied with the response.
  10. The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 12 January 2023. She said:
    1. The issue with the guttering had been ongoing since July 2021. Torrential rain had caused damage to her carpet, and the property below her. The slipped roof tile had also caused a hole in the roof, which allowed water ingress when it rained. This had caused damage to the ceiling. The landlord had taken no action to address any of the reported issues.
    2. The landlord should have made an exception to its 28 day stage 2 escalation policy in her case because she needed to allow more than 28 days after the stage 1 response to see if the landlord would begin the works when promised. The resident had chosen to escalate to stage 2 after the works had not commenced.
    3. She had made several calls to the landlord and on several occasions it had been unable to explain the reason for the delays to the works. The landlord had eventually told her the work had been delayed due to poor weather conditions. She disputed this because she had first raised a report in July 2021, and the landlord had taken no action since then.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 12 January 2023. It issued a stage 2 response on 25 January 2023, in which it said:
    1. Since the resident had raised the first report in July 2021, “additional address and information have been added, even though these are on the same block they are not necessarily in the same location and may not be connected to the same problem”.
    2. It was due to erect scaffolding in January 2023 and would commence the works in early February 2023, weather permitting.
    3. It was not upholding her complaint as it had provided her with a timeframe for the works to commence.
    4. The resident could bring the complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with its position.
  12. The resident duly made her complaint to this Service on 15 February 2023.
  13. The landlord’s records show it erected the scaffolding on 6 March 2023 and completed works to the roof and guttering on 17 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of works needed to the roof and guttering

  1. The “repairs priorities” section of the landlord’s repairs policy from the time of the reports included 4 categories of repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs, which had a target completion time of 24 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs, which had a target completion time of 5 working days.
    3. Standard repairs, which had a target completion time of 20 working days.
    4. Planned works, which had a target completion time of 9 months.
  2. The repairs policy categorised different types of repairs depending on the nature of the problem. In relation to the repairs the resident reported:
    1. Gutter repairs or renewals were considered urgent where there was a health or safety risk (for example, the disrepair was causing damp or damage to the building). If this was not the case, these repairs were considered planned repairs.
    2. Roofing repairs where the property was not watertight were considered urgent.
  3. While the landlord noted the resident’s reports on its repair log, we have seen no evidence it completed any surveys or works following this. The resident confirmed in her subsequent complaint that the landlord took no action following her reports. This was a failure of the landlord’s obligations under its repairs policy and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires it to complete any repairs within a reasonable time.
  4. The landlord told the resident on 6 September 2022 that her reported repairs would be completed within 9 months of her report on 6 September 2022. In taking this position, the landlord was ignoring the earlier reports the resident had made from 26 July 2021 onwards.
  5. The landlord’s policy confirmed guttering repairs were urgent where there was a health and safety risk. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord carried out any investigation before deciding the resident’s reports on 26 July 2021, 31 May 2022 and 6 September 2022 were not urgent.
  6. The resident reported that her property was not watertight on 20 October 2022 because the slipped roof tile was allowing a leak through the ceiling. This should have been considered an urgent repair under the landlord’s policy. However, the landlord cancelled this repair the day after the resident reported it without taking any action.
  7. The Ombudsman recently determined a case regarding roof repairs the landlord completed for a different resident (reference number 202316222). We found similar failings from the landlord in that case, and noted several other cases where we had found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks. As a result, we issued a wider order in accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme for the landlord to carry out a review of its practices in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks. The landlord is currently in the process of completing this review and providing a copy to this Service, so we will not issue any orders relating to this.
  8. For the long delays the resident experienced in relation to the roof and gutter repairs, the failure of the landlord to follow its repairs policy, and the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the roof and guttering.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints procedure confirmed it would:
    1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days.
    2. Issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days, but let the resident know if it could not meet this timescale.
    3. Acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 3 working days of the date the resident asked for an escalation
    4. Issue a stage 2 complaint response within 15 working days, but let the resident know if it could not meet this timescale.
  2. Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of the complaint said that, if the landlord required an extension of more than 20 working days for the stage 1 response or 10 working days for the stage 2 response, it needed to agree this with the resident. The Code also said that the landlord needed to provide an explanation of the delay and “a clear timeframe” for when the response would be received.
  3. While the landlord wrote to the resident on 20 September 2022 to confirm it would be delayed in sending its stage 1 response, it did not agree this with the resident, nor did it provide a clear timeframe as to when it would send the response. The resident waited almost 2 months for a response, which far exceeded the required timescale.
  4. The landlord was 3 working days late in issuing its second stage 1 response on 3 January 2023. It did not contact the resident prior to this to explain the delay, agree an extension or confirm a revised timescale for the response. This was contrary to the requirements under its complaints procedure and the Code.
  5. Section 4.14 of the Code said that the landlord could not “unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action”. While the landlord’s policy at the time did state the resident needed to request an escalation to stage 2 within 28 days of the stage 1 response, it would have been reasonable to send the resident a stage 2 response on 3 January 2023, rather than a second stage 1 response as it did. The resident gave a reasonable explanation as to why she had waited more than 28 days to submit her escalation request. The landlord’s decision to issue another stage 1 response delayed resolution of the matter unnecessarily.
  6. Sections 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code confirmed that the landlord needed to issue its stage 1 and stage 2 responses in “clear, plain language”. The landlord did not meet this requirement in its stage 2 response when it wrote that “additional address and information have been added, even though these are on the same block they are not necessarily in the same location and may not be connected to the same problem”. It is unclear what the landlord meant by this, or how this was relevant to the resident’s complaint.
  7. The landlord said in its second stage 1 response on 3 January 2023 that it had erected scaffolding in December 2022. However, it then said in its stage 2 response dated 25 January 2023 that it was due to erect scaffolding in January 2023 and would commence works in February 2023. These positions were contradictory and both incorrect, as it did not erect the scaffolding until 6 March 2023.
  8. Section 6.2 of the Code said that “any remedy offered (by the landlord) must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”. Despite identifying that the resident had faced long delays for repairs in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord did not offer any compensation to address this. The landlord also did not uphold her stage 2 complaint, despite acknowledging in the same letter that the resident had been waiting since July 2021 for repairs.
  9. The Ombudsman has identified several instances in this report where the landlord did not follow the requirements of the Code at the time of the complaint. The Ombudsman has since released a new statutory Complaint Handling Code in April 2024, which all social and local authority landlords are required to follow. As this new Code has replaced the Code that was in place at the time of the complaint, and the landlord has completed a recent self-assessment for the requirements of the new Code, this report will not issue any orders in relation to Code compliance.
  10. For the delays the resident faced in receiving responses to her complaint, the lack of updates from the landlord, the unclear and contradictory information included in the responses, and the failure to provide a suitable resolution, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs needed to the roof and guttering.
    2. Complaint.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with an apology written by a senior member of staff.
  2. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £1,300. This comprises:
    1. £1,000 for the long delays the resident faced in receiving repairs to the guttering and roof, and the distress and inconvenience in having to live in the property while affected by leaks.
    2. £300 for the complaint handling failures identified, and the resulting delays and inconvenience.