Harlow District Council (202311482)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311482

Harlow District Council

9 September 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 leaseholder 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 repairs to a leak to the roof at the leaseholder’s property.

Background

  1. The complainant is a leaseholder with the landlord and will be referred to as “the leaseholder” in this assessment. The landlord contracts out the management of repairs and complaints about repairs, to a property services management company. This company will be referred to as “the landlord’s agent” in this assessment. The property is a 2nd floor flat. At the time of his complaint, the leaseholder rented out his property to tenants.
  2. On 14 April 2022, the leaseholder reported to the landlord’s agent that a leak to the roof was causing damp and mould in his property.
  3. The leaseholder submitted a complaint to the landlord’s agent on 10 February 2023. He said the leaking roof and gutters had resulted in severe damp in the property. He provided photos showing the extent of the damp in the hallway, kitchen, living room, bathroom and bedroom. He said that despite several contacts from his letting agent over the past 9 months, the landlord’s agent had failed to carry out repairs. He said he was worried that the damp was putting the health of his tenants at risk and their baby had been hospitalised because of a damp-related issue. He asked the landlord’s agent to repair the leaking roof and gutters and address the resulting damp in his property as a matter of urgency.
  4. On 24 February 2023, the landlord’s agent issued its stage 1 complaint response on behalf of the landlord. It said:
    1. Roof repairs fell under the landlord’s planned works programme. It said the timescale for completing planned works was within 9 months of the date the issue was first reported.
    2. From March 2020 to March 2021, the Government had imposed restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and it had had to put some repairs on hold. Furthermore, bad weather meant it had received many reports of water ingress. It had a backlog of roof repairs therefore and was prioritising the most urgent and longstanding repairs.
    3. It had booked a roofing contractor for 2 March 2023.
    4. It upheld the leaseholder’s complaint as the repairs to the roof had taken longer than it would have liked. It apologised for the delays in carrying-out the repairs.
  5. The leaseholder escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 6 March 2023. He said he was seeking confirmation that the repairs had taken place as scheduled. He asked the landlord’s agent what steps it would take to remedy the damp in his property. He said he wanted to be reimbursed for the rent reduction he had given his tenants and for the cost of the dehumidifiers he had installed in the property. He said he was also seeking reimbursement for lost rent as his tenants had moved-out due to the damp and his property was vacant. He said it was unsafe for him to re-let the property until the landlord’s agent had remedied the damp and mould.
  6. On 23 March 2023, the landlord’s agent issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised to the leaseholder. It said it had incorrectly told him that the repairs to the roof would take place on 2 March 2023, when it had in fact booked an inspection to take place on that date. It said scaffolding was needed for the roof repairs and this was due to be put up in April 2023. Once the scaffolding was up, its roofing contractors would contact the leaseholder to let him know when the repairs would start. It said he would need to submit a claim on his leaseholder’s buildings insurance for reimbursement of the rent reduction he had given his tenants, for the cost of the dehumidifiers, and for the loss of rent since the property had been vacant. It said he would also need to contact the leaseholder buildings insurers about carrying out repairs to remedy the damp and mould in the property.
  7. The leaseholder’s letting agent contacted the landlord’s agent on 30 March 2023 for an update on when the scaffolding was due to go up. The landlord’s agent told the letting agent that it would pass their query onto its roofing contractors.
  8. On 3 April 2023, the landlord’s agent informed the landlord it needed to put up scaffolding in the garden of the property below the leaseholder’s, however there was an extension which was preventing it from doing so. On 4 April 2023, the landlord informed its agent it was taking steps to gain access to the property below and would begin the process of removing the extension and clearing the garden, once it had gained access. On 26 April 2023, the leaseholder’s letting agent contacted the landlord’s agent again for an update on the repairs. Again, the landlord’s agent said it would pass their request for an update on to its roofing contractors.
  9. The landlord’s agent contacted the leaseholder’s letting agent on 18 May 2023, to let them know the garden of the property below the leaseholder’s needed to be cleared before the scaffolding could go up. On 6 June 2023, the leaseholder and his letting agent sent further requests for updates to the landlord’s agent to ask when the scaffolding would be put up. The landlord’s agent responded to the letting agent the same day to say the property below the leaseholder’s was empty and it had chased the landlord for an update as to when the garden would be cleared and when the extension would be removed.
  10. On 29 and 30 June 2023, the leaseholder complained to the Ombudsman. He said that the scaffolding had still not been put up. The leaseholder and his letting agent had chased the landlord’s agent for updates, but it told him he should liaise with its roofing contractors. He said he and his letting agent were subsequently advised by the landlord’s agents to contact the person responsible for the repairs, however this person failed to respond to multiple messages they had left. He said the landlord’s agent had told him that an extension belonging to another property needed to be removed, but he had had no further updates and the repairs to the roof had not been carried out.
  11. The roofing contractors put up scaffolding on 25 August 2023 and on 5 September 2023, they carried out repairs to the roof. The landlord’s agent has told the Service that it has not had any reports from the leaseholder about further leaks to the roof.

Assessment

Policies and procedures

  1. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. The leaseholder is responsible for all internal repairs to the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is normally responsible for repairs to roofs and gutters. The policy states that it will carry out standard repairs within 20 working days and will carry-out planned works within 9 months.
  3. Leaseholder buildings insurance covers leaseholders against any repairs they are responsible for. Leaseholder buildings insurance policies are usually taken out by landlords on behalf of all leaseholders in the building. Leaseholders can claim under such policies for damage to their individual properties. Leaseholders pay towards the cost of the insurance via their service charge.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak to the roof

  1. The leaseholder first reported a leak to the roof and guttering in April 2022. The landlord’s agent’s stage 1 complaint response of 24 February 2023, states that the repairs to the roof and gutters were considered planned works and therefore it had up to 9 months to attend. This was an unreasonable response. Planned works can include repairs, but only where the repairs are not a health or safety risk and are not causing significant damage. Work to remedy a leak to a roof which is causing damp and mould should not be treated as planned works, therefore. It is accepted that repairs to remedy a leak to a roof and guttering may take longer than a standard repair as these generally need scaffolding to be put up and may take more than one attempt to resolve. However, the landlord’s agent would have been expected to complete any works within a couple of months of the issue first being reported to it, in line with industry best practice. There were some unavoidable delays due to the need to clear the garden belonging to another property in order to put the scaffolding up. However, this does not explain the full extent of the delays.
  2. The landlord’s agent acknowledged that there had been delays to it remedying the leak to the roof due to a backlog of repairs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and bad weather. It is accepted that many landlords had a backlog of repairs after COVID-19, however, the landlord’s agent should have kept the leaseholder regularly updated as to when it would carry out the repairs and it has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence that it did so prior to its stage 1 response. This was unreasonable and is likely to have caused the leaseholder time, trouble, and inconvenience as between 14 April 2022 and 24 February 2023, he was left without information as to what steps the landlord’s agent was taking in response to his report of a leak.
  3. The landlord’s agent acted appropriately in apologising to the leaseholder in its stage 2 complaint response for incorrectly advising him that the repairs had been booked for 2 March 2023, when in fact it had booked an inspection of the roof for that date, and the repairs could not be started until scaffolding had been put up. This would have caused frustration for the leaseholder as it had been over 11 months since he first reported the repair.
  4. The landlord’s agent told the leaseholder’s letting agent on 26 April 2023 and 16 May 2023, that it would pass on their requests for updates about the repairs to its roofing contractors. On other occasions it asked the letting agent to liaise directly with its roofing contractors for updates. This was unreasonable. The roofing contractors would not have had any direct knowledge as to the reasons for the delays as these were due to difficulties in the landlord gaining access to the property below. The landlord’s agent passing on queries to its roofing contractors, left the leaseholder without answers as to the reasons for the delays for over a month and a half, and will have left him uncertain as to who was responsible for keeping him updated as to the progress of the repairs. It is recommended that the landlord’s agent review its processes for keeping leaseholders updated about repairs to ensure that they are not kept waiting for responses from contractors who may not be able to provide updates.
  5. The landlord had told its agent on 4 April 2023 that the garden of the property below would need clearing before the scaffolding could go up. However, the landlord’s agent did not inform the leaseholder or his letting agent of this until 18 May 2023. This delay of over a month and a half in the landlord’s agent informing the leaseholder of the reasons for the delay was unreasonable, and will have caused him further time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  6. The landlord’s agent told the leaseholder’s letting agent on 6 June 2023 that works to clear the garden and to remove the extension were able to go ahead as there was no longer anyone living in the property below. The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman to show there were issues in carrying-out this work that it would not have been able to disclose to the leaseholder due to reasons of confidentiality. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord’s agent to provide the leaseholder with regular updates and shared any information it could without compromising confidentiality. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that it did so between 6 June 2023 and 5 September 2023, when the contractors repaired the roof. This was a failing which may have given the leaseholder the impression that nothing was being done to progress these works.
  7. It was appropriate that in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised the leaseholder that he would need to make a claim on his leaseholder’s buildings insurance for the necessary internal works to remedy the damp and mould in his property. Leaseholders are expected to use the leaseholder insurance where possible to cover the cost of repairs to their own property as the landlord is not usually responsible for such repairs, in line with the lease. It was also reasonable for the landlord to direct the leaseholder to his leaseholder’s insurance to make a claim for any reimbursement of rent or costs he had incurred.  It is outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate any claim the leaseholder may make on his leaseholder insurance, because the leasehold insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. The landlord would not be expected to pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience which the leaseholder’s tenants experienced, including any damage to health. This is because the landlord does not have a contractual relationship with the tenants so it does not have any responsibilities towards them. The landlord only has responsibilities towards the leaseholder.
  8. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the actions of its agent where the agent is acting on behalf of the landlord. The landlord’s failures in its handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a leak to the roof, amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that where maladministration has been identified that adversely affected the tenant/leaseholder, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the leaseholder £200 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of a leak to the roof.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leak to the roof.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the leaseholder £200 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak to the roof within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that it provides the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance by the same date.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord’s agent review its processes for keeping leaseholders updated about repairs. The agent should take ownership of updates to ensure that leaseholders are not kept waiting for responses from contractors who may not be able to provide updates.