Lewisham Council (202118554)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118554

Lewisham Council

30 August 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak to the external communal pathway.
2. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s decision to recharge for the leak repairs.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a purpose-built studio flat of which the landlord is the freeholder.
Under the terms of the lease, the landlord has various repair obligations in respect of the resident’s block and the estate on which it is situated. This includes an obligation to maintain in good repair and condition the sewers, drains, and other pipes installed in the block and on the estate for water supply and drainage; and an obligation to maintain in reasonable repair and condition the access roads, footpaths and common areas of the estate.
The resident has an obligation under the lease to pay a proportion of the charges incurred by the landlord in complying with these and other obligations under the lease. The resident’s proportion is paid by way of service charges.
The landlord’s responsibilities for repair are carried out on its behalf by its appointed managing agent. For convenience, both the appointed managing agent and the landlord will be referred to in this investigation report as ‘the landlord’.
The landlord has provided this Service with its relevant policies and procedures.
The landlord’s repairs policy provides that where the landlord has a repairs responsibility, reported repairs will be logged and ordered promptly. The landlord adopts a ‘right first time’ approach, where it proactively manages repairs and the resident does not have to chase works.
The landlord’s major work and service charge collection procedure provides for the resolution of disputes which may arise in respect of costs which are sought to be recovered by way of service charges. This includes disputes as to whether a particular service or works have been provided or have been delivered to a reasonable standard. Under the procedure, the landlord is required to obtain evidence from the service provider or contractor that the service has been rendered and that it has been provided to a reasonable standard and to take further steps in order to try to resolve the issue.
Where it is not possible to resolve the issue, the leaseholder can challenge the charge via the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). The leaseholder can also make a complaint under the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The landlord operates a three stage complaints process. The landlord aims to provide a Stage 1 response to a complaint within 10 working days and a Stage 2 response within 20 working days of a request for escalation. A resident who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint at Stage 2 can ask the landlord’s Independent Adjudicator to review the case at Stage 3.

Summary of events

On 16 April 2020, the resident raised a repair request with the landlord. She reported to the landlord that there was a water leak on the external communal pathway and that it appeared to be coming from underground.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 22 April 2020 that it had raised a job for the leak which would be attended that day. This is reflected in the landlord’s repairs log.
The resident chased the repair with the landlord by email of 4 June 2020. She noted that the repair had not been carried out and provided a photo of the leak. The resident sent a further chaser on 17 June 2020. The resident informed the landlord that she thought it was sewage water and unhygienic.
The landlord acknowledged these emails on 19 June 2020 and subsequently confirmed to the resident that the contractors would be attending on 26 June 2020 to complete the works required. There is no entry in the landlord’s repair log for an attendance on that day.
On 29 June 2020, the resident chased the landlord again as the leak was still on the path. The resident stated that it did not look like a contractor had attended. She sent further photos.
On 30 June 2020, the landlord apologised for the delay which it acknowledged was unacceptable. It informed the resident that its supervisor would meet the contractors on site the next day.
Following further communications between the resident and the landlord regarding the leak, the landlord advised the resident by email on 10 July 2020 that it had liaised with its contractors. The contractors reported that they had waited on site the day before for Thames Water (TW), who did not attend until 4.10pm and then advised that they would not be carrying out any works. TW and the contractors had met on site on 10 July 2020 and it had been identified that the leak was on the fire hydrant which TW, not the landlord, was responsible for. TW had informed the contractors that it would advise within 7 days when it would be rectifying the issue.
On 13 July 2020, the resident queried with the landlord how many times the contractors had attended the repair since it was first reported and why it took them 3 months to find out that TW was responsible for it. The resident followed up this query with the landlord on 20 July 2020, having not received a response. The resident expressed concern that leaseholders were paying high costs for substandard services and asked the landlord to investigate what looked like rogue practices of the contractors.
The landlord sent an email response to the resident on 30 July 2020. This email explained:
1. There had been two separate issues with water leaks at the property and the contractors had attended for both.
2. With regard to the underground pipe leak affecting the communal pathway, the landlord had deployed an operative to attend site along with its works supervisor. Following that attendance, it had instructed one of its contractors to investigate.
3. There had been a delay in its contractors attending due to the pandemic and due to some of the leak detection team being furloughed.
4. TW had arranged to meet the landlord’s contractors on 9 July 2020 in the morning to discuss the location of the leak as in most cases these were TW’s responsibility. TW did not turn up on site until 4pm and it was arranged to meet the next day with the contractors. TW had agreed at that meeting that they would book in the repair with their team to undertake a dig up of the site as the leak was on TW’s side. TW had declined the landlord’s offer that its contractors could undertake this.
5. The landlord had tried on many occasions to obtain a full update from TW but had not heard back from them. The landlord had emailed TW that day to obtain an update.
6. The landlord confirmed that no charges were being made by its contractors for the two occasions they had met with TW.
On 5 August 2020, the resident responded and asked that the landlord monitor the repair which TW was responsible for.
On 14 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it that she had arranged for a TW engineer to attend on site to look at the leak. The engineer had informed the resident that the leak was not TW’s responsibility as it was within the property boundary. The water was coming from a manhole near the path which did not belong to TW. The resident complained that the information given to the landlord by its contractors was incorrect. She asked again for the leak to be repaired and for the contractors to be investigated.
In response, the landlord arranged for its contractors to inspect the site on 16 October 2020.
On 4 November 2020, the resident enquired what was happening about the leak. She provided further photos of the leak which she said was still there.
On 5 November 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the information given to her by TW was correct and that its contractors would be attending to carry out the works required.
The landlord’s repair log produced to this Service records that on 5 November 2020, the landlord raised an order for its contractors to attend and carry out works to a burst main at the resident’s block with a target date of 3 December 2020. The log records the date completed as 3 December 2020.
It is noted that, subsequent to this entry, the landlord’s repair records produced to this Service contain no further relevant record of repairs relating to the leak during the period of investigation of this report.
On 22 February 2021, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about the length of time it had taken to fix the leak which she said was still present. The resident provided photos of the leak with the complaint.
The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 25 February 2021.
On 4 March 2021, the landlord’s complaints co-ordinator provided a Stage 1 complaint response. This stated:
1. In order to investigate the complaint, the complaints coordinator had checked the landlord’s repair records and liaised with the landlord’s responsive repairs manager and the groundwork and drainage contractors.
2. The landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the issue and that the resident had had to report it multiple times.
3. There was more than one underground leak in April 2020 which the contractors had been instructed to attend and remedy. It appeared that there may have been some overlap between the two repairs which added to the delays in resolving the issues.
4. In July 2020, the landlord had liaised with TW to establish responsibility for the repair. TW had initially stated that they were responsible for the repair but later stated the repair was the landlord’s responsibility to carry out. This was only established in November 2020 and a repair was promptly arranged with the landlord’s contractors.
5. The landlord’s contractors had confirmed that works were completed on 20 November 2020 which included an excavation, pump out of excess water and replacement pipework. The works had been post inspected and signed off.
6. The complaints coordinator noted that she had spoken to the resident on 3 March 2021 and the resident had confirmed that the leak had not been resolved. This information had been passed on to the responsive repairs manager who had advised that this would be investigated again to determine if the repair carried out in November 2020 had failed.
7. The landlord stated that it could often be the case when a section of pipework was renewed that other parts could fail. The landlord’s responsive repairs manager would be overseeing any further repairs required to ensure that there were no further delays.
On 13 April 2021, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint to Stage 2 as no action had been taken by the landlord to fix the leak which had been reported a year previously and was still ongoing. In the escalation request, the resident explained:
1. She had spoken to a representative from the landlord after raising the Stage 1 complaint and made it clear that the leak had not been repaired. She had supplied photographic evidence of this. The landlord had not reviewed this evidence nor inspected the site, despite the ongoing issue. The resident supplied further photographs of the leak which had been taken in December.
2. The resident raised a number of queries in relation to the Stage 1 response letter:
  1. It referred to more than one reported leak at the site in April 2020 but did not explain how confusion had arisen between the two or contact the resident for clarification. The resident had reported both leaks.
  2. It stated that TW had initially accepted responsibility for the repair. The resident asked to see evidence of this.
  3. The resident wanted to know why the landlord did not chase TW when it had accepted responsibility for the repair. The resident had taken her own time to do so and had established from TW that the repair was the landlord’s responsibility. The resident had had no difficulty contacting TW’s team.
  4. It stated that the repair works were completed on 20 November 2020 and had been post inspected and signed off. According to the resident’s photos dated 22 December 2020 that this was not true as the leak continued in the same place. The resident wanted to know who post inspected and signed off the works and who from the landlord supervised the works.
  5. The landlord had stated that it was investigating the leak to determine if the repair carried out in November had failed. The resident believed that the repair had not been carried out. The landlord had not contacted the resident with the outcome of the investigation.
  6. The landlord had suggested that other parts of the pipework had failed. The resident wanted to know if the inspection team had notified the repair team of this and any additional repairs.
3. The resident complained that she had been chasing the repair for over a year and that the landlord had not by its own initiative sought to resolve the issue or communicate with her about it.
4. The outcome sought by the resident was:
  1. a response to her questions;
  2. a date for the repair of the leak;
  3. for the landlord to review its customer service; and
  4. for the landlord to take action to ensure that problems were resolved in a timely manner, that its contractors were properly controlled and that the landlord communicated with customers throughout the resolution process.
From April 2021, major works were carried out by the landlord’s building contractors as part of a development of the site. During the period that these works were carried out, the leak was fixed.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord’s Head of Direct Labour provided a Stage 2 response to the complaint. This stated:
1. The landlord had checked its repairs records, spoken with the responsive repairs manager and the complaints coordinator as well as reviewing the complaint at Stage 1.
2. It summarised that the resident’s complaint was that the Stage 1 complaint had not addressed all the issues raised and that the leak in the communal area had not been resolved despite the landlord’s confirmation from its contractors that it had been done in November.
3. The landlord stated that the contractors had provided photographs to confirm the repair completed by them in November. It was possible that the repair had failed; there could be a second leak in the same area that would need to be addressed as a new repair; and there was a possibility that the water gathering was residual water that had accumulated post repair.
4. With regard to the resident’s query as to how two separate repairs could have overlapped, the landlord apologised and explained that this had been the case and had contributed to the delays in carrying out the repairs. It explained that both repairs reported in April 2020 by the resident had been recorded on the landlord’s systems using similar description terms and allocated to the same contractor to remedy. When staff had raised further works orders or chased for updates, the two repairs had become overlapped. The landlord put this down to human error. All repairs staff had been reminded about recording repairs as accurately as possible, including giving specific locations, to minimise the occurrence of such errors.
5. With regard to the resident’s query as to the delay in establishing who was responsible for the repair, the landlord had contacted TW to establish this and had initially been advised it was the responsibility of TW. The landlord apologised that it did not follow this up in a timely way. When it did, it was then established that the repair was the responsibility of the landlord and it then instructed its contractors to repair the leak.
6. The landlord’s responsive repairs manager would liaise again with the contractors to review all their reports and completion notices to ensure the correct repairs, in the correct locations, were completed. If there was any indication that the repair completed in November had failed, the contractors would be instructed to return as a recall. The landlord would be ensuring any further repairs were actioned in a timely way.
7. The response referred to works in progress on the estate which had rendered the area a building site with restricted access. It would liaise with colleagues in major works and contractors on site regarding repairs to any new or ongoing leaks.
On 26 May 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord complaining that the Stage 2 response had not responded to all the questions she had raised. The resident also asked to see the photos provided by the contractors to confirm that the repair was completed by them in November and the nature of the repair carried out. The resident confirmed in this email that the leak had been repaired by the building contractors present on the estate, not the contractors instructed by the landlord to conduct the repair in November 2020. In information subsequently provided to this Service, the resident explained that as part of a building project on the estate, the contractors renovated the estate roads and moved parking spaces to the site of the leak which was fixed as part of those works.
By email to the resident of 9 June 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s outstanding questions. The landlord confirmed:
1. TW had initially accepted responsibility for the repair at a joint inspection meeting with the contractors on 10 July 2020.
2. The repair works were overseen by its repairs supervisor and signed off on its systems by the landlord’s quality supervisor on 19 March 2021.
3. It was unable to provide information from further investigations to determine if the leak was a failing on the repair, or residual water which had accumulated, or a second leak because at the time of its investigation, contractors were on site from major works and its officers were not allowed entry.
The landlord also sent the resident the photos it had received from its contractors by way of confirmation of the repair works carried out in November 2020.
On 16 June 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it that the photographs provided by its contractors were not from the repair site. She complained regarding the landlord’s failures with regard to resolving the leak. She asked the landlord for confirmation that the situation would not happen again and that the estate would not be charged for the repair. She also asked that the contractors and the landlord’s repairs supervisor should be internally investigated to avoid failed repairs and incorrect attribution of repair charges.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord’s responsive repairs manager sent a Stage 2 follow on response which addressed the issues raised by the resident. This stated:
1. Its contractors had confirmed to it that they had carried out a repair to resolve the leak in November 2020. Photos were taken from site and forwarded to its repairs supervisors to approve works for payment. Due to the ongoing pandemic and the government imposed restrictions at that time, the landlord’s supervisors were surveying and signing off works from a desktop.
2. The contractors had been asked by the landlord to review the photographs they had sent and the landlord had been on site to ensure the photographs provided married up with the correct site. The contractors had advised there was one photograph that did not correspond with this repair and apologised for their error and any confusion this may have caused.
3. The landlord confirmed that the other photographs did correspond with the site and did confirm the repair as complete.
4. The landlord reiterated that it was possible there had been a second leak, a failed repair from the contractors, or residual water accumulating in the same area.
5. The landlord had spoken with the site manager for the building contractors currently on site who advised he was not aware of them having completed any repairs to any leaks. The landlord had not been contacted by them in relation to a leak and no permissions were sought or given for them to repair a leak plus no invoice had been submitted or paid in relation to a leak.
6. The landlord outlined various processes it had implemented as a way of ensuring smarter working practices. These included that before, during and after photos were to be submitted by contractors before financial application.
7. The landlord was not able to confirm that the residents of the estate would not be charged for the repair to the leak. The contractors had attended in November 2020 and had carried out a repair for which they had been paid.
8. It confirmed that contractors were monitored and reviewed on a regular basis. Any contractors deemed to be underperforming would not be invited to tender to renew contracts or in extreme cases contracts would be terminated early.
9. There were no performance issues to address regarding the repairs supervisor who had overseen the works.
The landlord’s Stage 2 follow on response of 5 July 2021 supplied details of the landlord’s independent adjudicator to whom the resident could escalate the complaint to Stage 3 of the complaints process if she remained dissatisfied. It is noted that the resident made an escalation request to the landlord’s independent adjudicator on 11 November 2021. The independent adjudicator declined to consider the complaint further as she considered that the FTT would be better placed to resolve it.
On 10 November 2021, the resident referred her complaint to this Service. The resident complained that she had received bad quality works and services, that the landlord had mismanaged works and services, and that she was paying for works and services that were not provided by the landlord but which the landlord had claimed for as if they had completed them.
On 22 March 2022, the resident provided further clarification of her complaint:
1. The landlord did not provide evidence of the leak repair. The resident had photographic evidence confirming that it was not done.
2. The landlord mismanaged the repair, claiming that it was done when it was not.
3. The landlord had confirmed in the Stage 2 response that they would charge for the repair.
4. In the resident’s view, the landlord had committed fraud.
5. Going forward, the resident wanted the landlord to provide photo and video evidence of any repair they carried out to support their claims of works completed and charges for the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint is that she disputes that leak repair works were carried out on 20 November 2020 as stated by the landlord. The resident considers that the landlord’s decision to recharge for the leak repair in these circumstances is a financial fraud.
This Service cannot determine the legitimacy or reasonableness of service charges. This is because under paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Under paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The FTT has the jurisdiction to determine such matters and the power to make decisions that are binding on the parties.
However, the Ombudsman can consider how the landlord responded to enquiries or concerns raised by the resident about the leak repair and about the landlord’s decision to recharge the costs of it. This will therefore be the focus of this investigation report.
It is also noted that one of the outcomes sought by the resident is that, going forward, the landlord should provide photo and video evidence of any repair it does to support its claims in respect of completed works and the consequent charges for those repairs. This is not an outcome which is likely to be within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
It is noted, however, that the landlord’s major work and service charge collection procedure referred to above already provides a process for the landlord to obtain evidence from contractors and service providers in respect of disputed costs in service charges. The landlord’s Stage 2 follow on response dated 5 July 2021 also indicates that one of the processes it has implemented is that before, during and after photos of works are to be submitted by contractors.

The landlord’s handling of leak repair works

The resident first reported the leak to the external communal pathway on 16 April 2020. The leak fell within the landlord’s responsibility to repair under the terms of the resident’s lease. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord should have logged and ordered the repair promptly and proactively managed it.
When the leak was initially reported, the landlord raised the repair promptly and advised the resident that it would be attended on 22 April 2020. However, the repair was not carried out at that visit and the resident was required to chase the landlord for progress on 4 and 17 June 2020. Although the landlord logged a further request with its contractors to attend on 26 June 2020, and kept the resident advised of this, the repair was not carried out on that occasion either, requiring the resident to chase the landlord again.
The landlord acknowledged that this delay was unacceptable and apologised for it in its email to the resident of 30 June 2020. It arranged for a supervisor to meet the contractors on site the next day. At a subsequent meeting with TW on 10 July 2020, the landlord identified that TW was responsible for the leak and would be rectifying the issue.
The landlord’s Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses indicate that a cause of the delay during this period was that its staff had confused the leak repair with a different leak repair on the same estate, due to the way it had described the repairs in its systems. This points to poor record keeping by the landlord, as recognised by it in its Stage 2 complaint response.
The result was that the issue had been outstanding for 12 weeks by the time that it was identified that the responsibility for the repair was that of TW rather than the landlord. This was an unreasonable length of time for the landlord to take to ascertain responsibility for resolving the repair and the resident was caused inconvenience and time and trouble as a result.
Following the meeting with TW on 10 July 2020, it would be reasonable to expect that the landlord would monitor the progress of the repair to be carried out by TW and keep the resident advised.
However, there is no evidence in the landlord’s records produced to this Service that it did either of these things. The resident was required to take matters into her own hands in arranging a site visit by TW. In doing so, the resident established that the water leak was not the responsibility of TW after all, contrary to the information provided to the landlord by its contractors on 10 July 2020.
The resident reported this to the landlord on 14 October 2020 and the landlord arranged for its contractors to inspect the site on 16 October 2020. Although the landlord arranged for its contractors to attend within a reasonable timescale, there was a further unexplained delay between 16 October 2020 and 5 November 2020 before it confirmed to the resident that the position as advised by her was correct and that its contractors would therefore be attending to carry out the works required.
The result was a delay of nearly 4 months after the site meeting with TW on 10 July 2020 before it was established, and the landlord accepted, that it had responsibility for the repair rather than TW as previously thought. It is reasonable to assume that this would have been established sooner if the landlord had proactively communicated with TW regarding the repair in the period after 10 July 2020.
The resident was caused inconvenience and time and trouble during this 4 month period, in chasing the repair and in directly liaising with TW to try to resolve the issue.
After it was established that the repair was the landlord’s responsibility, according to the landlord, its contractors fixed the repair on 20 November 2020 when it carried out an excavation, pump out of excess water and replacement pipework.
As part of the resident’s complaint, she disputed that any repair was carried out on 20 November 2020 by the landlord’s contractors. Photographs taken by the resident on 22 December 2020 showed that the leak to the communal pathway was still present.
The landlord did not dispute that the leak persisted after 20 November 2020 but referred the resident to various possible reasons for this which were consistent with the repair having been carried out, such as a failed repair, or a second leak, or an accumulation of residual water.
This Service is not in position to determine the reason for the leak persisting after 20 November 2020. The Ombudsman’s remit is to review the contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
In this regard, it is noted that the landlord’s repair log records that it raised a repair order on 5 November 2020 for its contractors to attend and carry out works to a burst main. It is understood that the landlord post inspected the works from its desktop in line with its procedures applicable during the pandemic and that it was provided with site photographs by its contractors to evidence the works carried out. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information being provided by its contractors at this time as evidence that the repair had been completed.
The landlord became aware that the leak persisted when the resident logged a formal complaint on 22 February 2021 that the leak was still present and supplied photographs.
Upon being made aware that the leak was ongoing, it is not clear what, if any, action was taken by the landlord to address it. It is noted that in its Stage 1 response of 4 March 2021, it confirmed to the resident that the information that the leak had not been resolved had been passed on to the responsive repairs manager and that he would be overseeing any further repairs required to ensure that there were no further delays.
However, the landlord’s repair records produced to this Service are silent as to any steps taken in the period after November 2020 to resolve the ongoing leak, indicating further record keeping failures by the landlord. As at 13 April 2021, when the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated, she reported that the leak remained and she had received no relevant communication about the repair from the landlord.
It is apparent that the leak wasnot resolved until May 2021 and even then, possibly not as a result of actions taken by the landlord. The resident confirmed in her email to the landlord on 26 May 2021 that the leak was resolved and stated that this was done by the building contractors present on the site, albeit the landlord later suggested there was no evidence of this.
In summary, the leak first reported by the resident on 16 April 2020 took more than a year to resolve. This was an excessive period of delay beyond the landlord’s policy and reasonable timescales. Most of the delay was due to the landlord failing appropriately to manage the repair as required under its repairs policy, in the various respects outlined above. The landlord’s poor record keeping also contributed to this, as it has acknowledged.
This caused detriment to the resident in that she was caused inconvenience because the external communal pathway on the estate where she lived was covered in water over a considerable period of time, which she was concerned may be sewage water and unhygienic. The resident was put to time and trouble in chasing the landlord on many occasions for progress in repairing the leak and in liaising directly with TW to try to resolve the matter herself.
It was appropriate for the landlord, when providing its complaint responses, to apologise to the resident for the delay. However, an apology alone does not fully put right the detriment caused to the resident. Under the circumstances, an award of £250 would be appropriate compensation.

The landlord’s decision to recharge for the repairs

Part of the resident’s complaint to this Service is that the landlord did not agree in its Stage 2 follow on response not to charge for the November 2020 repair in its service charges. The resident was concerned that she was paying for works which had not been provided.
Under the landlord’s major work and service charge collection procedure, where there is a dispute in respect of costs which are sought to be recovered by way of service charges, including whether a particular service or works have been provided or have been delivered to a reasonable standard, the landlord is required to obtain evidence from the service provider or contractor that the service has been rendered.
The resident raised concerns in relation to the charge for the repair after the landlord stated in its Stage 1 response of 4 March 2021 that its contractors had attended to fix the leak on 20 November 2020. In her request for escalation of 13 April 2021, and in subsequent emails, the resident challenged whether the repair had been carried out. According to the resident’s photographs dated 22 December 2020, a leak continued in the same place.
The landlord responded in line with its major work and service charge collection procedure in providing the resident (on 9 June 2021) with the site photographs supplied to it by its contractors, on the basis of which its repairs supervisors had approved the works for payment. The landlord also outlined other possible reasons why the leak persisted after 20 November 2020 which were consistent with the repair having been carried out, although it was not able to further investigate these at the time due to contractors being on site conducting major works.
When the resident raised concerns in her email of 16 June 2021 that the photographs were not from the repair site, and asked for confirmation that the estate would not be charged for the repair, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the matter further. It asked its contractors to review the photographs and attended the site to ensure that the photographs married up. Its contractors acknowledged their error in that one of the photographs did not correspond to the repair, which was a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy noted by the resident. The landlord confirmed to the resident in its Stage 2 follow on response of 5 July 2021 that the other photographs did correspond with the site.
The landlord therefore took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns in line with its procedure. It obtained confirmation as to the accuracy of the evidence of the repair provided by its contractors in order to satisfy itself that the contractors had carried out the work for which they had been paid. It also set out possible reasons why the leak persisted after 20 November 2020 which were consistent with the repair having been carried out, albeit it was not possible to explore these further given the time that had passed. Under the circumstances, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the decision to recharge for the repair.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to a leak to the external communal pathway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about its decision to recharge for the leak repairs.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take the required steps to effectively or proactively manage the leak repair to the external communal pathway as required under its repairs policy. This resulted in an excessive delay of a year in resolving the leak which was beyond reasonable timescales.
The landlord took appropriate steps to obtain evidence from its contractors as to the works carried out, in line with its major works and service charge collection procedure. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the accuracy of the evidence of the repair provided by its contractors, in response to the resident’s concerns.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the maladministration identified in its handling of the leak repair.
2. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by the failings identified in its handling of the leak repair.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping procedures to ensure that all repairs are fully and accurately recorded. It should do so in line with the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions with regard to the above recommendation.