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

Islington Council (202006920)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006920

Islington Council

03 March 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns the resident’s liability for major work charges for replacing the metal roof to their property and the estate at large.
  2. The resident asserts that the landlord failed in its design, installation and maintenance of the metal roofs on the estate, as well as not maintaining warranties.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. In October 2019, the resident, along with some other leaseholders, raised a complaint with the landlord about its major works programme.
  2. The resident complained that the landlord (as the freeholder) has a contractual duty to repair, clean, improve and keep in good order and condition, the roofs and gutters of the properties on the estate.
  3. The resident said that the landlord has failed in this duty by not applying a reasonable amount of skill and care, which resulted in all 17 buildings on the estate having had their roofs replaced or overhauled four times in a space of 40 years.

 

  1. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 October 2019. It said – amongst other things – that the landlord’s capital programme delivery department decided to completely redesign the roofs in 1995, as they had been prone to water leaks since construction in 1975-1977.
  2. The landlord then provided a final response to the complaint on 21 February 2020. It explained that the main cause of water leakage was due to the estate’s drainage system. It acknowledged the roofs were also a cause of water leakage and explained that they are beyond technical and economic repair. The landlord also noted its records confirm that hundreds of general roof repairs have been completed across the estate since it was built.
  3. The landlord also provided information about historic repairs, explaining that warranties offered at the time of previous major works were different to those offered more recently, as they were not insured and therefore difficult to claim against if a contractor went into receivership or could not be traced.
  4. It said that it does not view itself as an insurer and cannot enter into arrangements to provide guarantees and warranties for work that is carried out on its behalf.
  5. The resident brought their complaint to this Service, with the resident being named the lead complainant in a group complaint (along with some other leaseholders). The resident is seeking a 100% waiver of the entire costs of the latest set of replacement roofs (installed 2018 – 2020).

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:

The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

  1. The resident’s complaint turns on their belief that it is not reasonable for the landlord to recharge them for further works to the roof. They explained that they believe the landlord should be liable for further repair costs, stating that they believe the landlord has failed in its obligations as the freeholder, to properly maintain and/or repair the roofs of the buildings on the estate.
  2. The landlord’s position is that it has fulfilled its obligations as freeholder, and that the two major capital works to the roofs in the past 20 years demonstrate this. It maintains that there has been no breach to the terms of the lease agreement and that residents are liable for the cost of work to the roofs.

 

  1. This Service cannot consider a complaint about the resident’s liability for major work charges when the Ombudsman considers it more effective for the resident to seek a remedy through another tribunal. This means the resident may instead raise any concern with the First Tier Property Tribunal (property chamber). Therefore, this is not a complaint that the Ombudsman can investigate further.
  2. The First-Tier Tribunal (property chamber) can consider complaints about whether a landlord has followed the correct procedure in order to recharge leaseholders for major works, and disputes about the reasonableness of those charges. If, as mentioned in the resident’s correspondence, they believe that the landlord’s actions have given rise to this issue and subsequent costs, this may also give rise to a damages claim, which would be a matter for the Court to consider. I am therefore satisfied that, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, this is not a complaint which the Ombudsman can investigate further.