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

Lewisham Council (202124493)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124493

Lewisham Council

13 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to:
    1. The guttering.
    2. The roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident was a leaseholder of the landlord. The property was a first floor flat. The resident sold the flat in April 2023. The landlord employs a managing agent that managed the resident’s property on its behalf, for clarity both will be referred to as the landlord in this report.
  2. The resident initially reported an issue with blocked guttering overflowing on 19 February 2019, which was intermittently ongoing throughout 2019 and 2020 and several repairs were completed. Throughout 2021, he proceeded to raise concerns that the landlord had not implemented a permanent solution to the guttering issues.
  3. On 18 August 2021 the resident reported a roof leak, which had caused damage to the property. He subsequently raised a complaint as the landlord advised it would attend within 21 days, which he said was an unacceptable delay. He was also dissatisfied that the landlord had failed to provide a permanent fix to the guttering issue.
  4. In its stage 1 response on 27 August 2021, the landlord said it had raised a work order to investigate both issues. It said the guttering was cleared, a section was replaced on 8 October 2020, and it was not aware of any outstanding repairs relating to the issue. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
  5. The Service has not been provided a copy of the resident’s escalation request, but the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 October 2021. A contractor attended the property on 14 September 2021 and identified the leak, which would be repaired and tested. The guttering was also checked and cleared of debris. It said a further work order took place on 10 October 2021 to inspect the internal damage and the contractor reported the leak was ongoing despite being fixed previously. It identified damage to the roof and said scaffolding would be erected on 22 October 2021 for further investigation. It would advise the resident of the identified works and monitor the repairs.
  6. The resident advised the landlord he was unhappy with the response on 21 October 2021. He disputed that a contractor had attended on 10 October 2021 and said the leak had not been previously fixed. He said although the gutter had been previously cleared, it was not a permanent resolution, and a contractor advised a downpipe was required to resolve the issue. He could not repair the internal damage, until the leak was resolved.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 3 response on 15 November 2021. The response upheld the resident’s complaint and said that even allowing for COVID-19 and the possibility a Section 20 was required (to notify leaseholders of the proposed repairs and give the opportunity to make written observations), there had been delays in resolving the issue. It would arrange the works without further delay and provide the resident with a timeframe for the works. It offered the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the avoidable stress and inconvenience. It advised the resident to claim on his insurance for the internal damage.
  8. The resident referred the matter to the Service on 7 February 2022 as the landlord had not fulfilled the actions outlined in its stage 3 response. He wanted the landlord to replace the gutter and ensure the roof was fixed and further compensation for the stress, inconvenience, and lack of appropriate response. He also wanted the landlord to accept the costs of the repairs, which would typically be the resident’s responsibility as the leaseholder.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is evident that the guttering issue had been intermittently ongoing since February 2019. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. In this case, the investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the issue from January 2021. Any reference to historical reports is for contextual purposes only and have not formed part of the assessment.
  2. The resident has suggested the overflowing guttering and the roof leak are connected. The Service has not been provided evidence to confirm the connection of the two issues, in addition it is outside the expertise of the Service to confirm whether this is the case, therefore the overflowing guttering and roof leak will be addressed separately.
  3. The resident has also raised concerns with the costs of the repairs, that he would be responsible for in his service charge. The matter has been referred to the First Tier Tribunal. As such, it will not be considered within this report. This is in line with paragraph 42 (f) of the Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints that “concern 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 landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering

  1. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the guttering and drains. The landlord’s repair service information states that category 1 and 2 repairs will be completed within 4 hours, category 3 within 24 hours, category 4 within 3 calendar days and category 5 within 21 calendar days. The Service has not been provided with information regarding how the landlord categorises repair issues.
  2. On 12 January 2021, the resident told the landlord the guttering issue had been ongoing since 2019 despite several repair attempts. Although the historical reports will not be assessed in the investigation, the landlord should have considered how the repair issue had been previously handled when determining how best to proceed. The landlord unblocked the gutter 4 times between 19 March 2021 and 1 July 2021. While it is recognised that several repairs can be necessary to provide a full and lasting resolution, in this case, it appears the repairs only addressed the immediate issue of unblocking the gutter, rather than the underlying cause. As such, the repairs only provided an interim solution.
  3. On 23 June 2021 the landlord told the resident that work had been recommended to the drainage, but it was unable to proceed until the repairs had been approved. A contractor attended on 14 September 2021 and noted the “gutter was full of tree debris, as there is a big tree overhanging roof, as per last report”. There is no evidence that the landlord acted within a reasonable timeframe to address the identified issue. Furthermore, it did not discuss the findings with the resident, provide further details regarding the necessary works, or an expected timeframe, so it failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
  4. The repair records show the gutters were cleared a further 4 times between 28 October 2021 and 9 February 2022. The landlord did not discuss a permanent solution with the resident until 9 December 2021, when he chased the matter. The landlord said it had arranged works to cut back the trees and had obtained quotes to install netting over the guttering, which was waiting approval. On 18 January 2022, the landlord advised it was also obtaining quotes for deeper guttering and a downward pipe to be installed next to the resident’s front door.
  5. It is unclear from the records provided when the work was completed. The landlord advised the resident that the netting would be installed by 4 March 2022, depending on the weather. The resident subsequently advised the Service on 28 April 2022 that the guttering repairs had been completed. Regardless, it is evident that the landlord did not adhere to its repair timeframe from when the repairs were identified.
  6. It is clear there were significant failures by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to address the overflowing guttering at the property. Although it was appropriate that it unblocked the gutters when necessary, it failed to identify and action a repair to address the underlying cause of the issue within a reasonable timeframe. The ongoing issue caused inconvenience to the resident, and he told the landlord it presented a hazard in winter. He also had to pursue the repairs on numerous occasions, causing him additional time and trouble, as the landlord was not forthcoming with updates.
  7. It is noted that there were several inaccuracies in the landlord’s complaint responses. In its stage 1 response on 27 August 2021, it advised the last repair took place on 8 October 2020 and there were no outstanding repairs, which significantly contradicts the repair records. The landlord is expected to use the complaint process to identify any failings and learn from outcomes. If it had thoroughly investigated the issue, it may have been able to resolve the complaint at an earlier date.
  8. In its final response, the landlord recognised that even allowing for COVID-19, there had been delays in resolving the issue. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether any remedy offered by the landlord is sufficient to put things right for the resident. The landlord offered £250 compensation for avoidable stress and inconvenience in its handling of the overflowing gutter and the leak. It did not specify how much compensation was awarded for each issue. Regardless, the compensation offered was not proportionate to the time taken to resolve the issue and the failings identified in this report. As such, in place of the compensation offered, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300. This is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, which considers the amount appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof leak

  1. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property including the roof. As a result, when the resident raised concerns regarding a roof leak, it was obliged to complete any necessary repairs within the relevant timeframe.  
  2. The resident reported a leak on 18 August 2021, which he said was causing damage to the interior of the property, indicating it was uncontainable. The landlord advised him that it would attend within 21 working days. Although the landlord has not provided criteria for its repair timeframes, it does not appear to be reasonable that the landlord handled the leak at its lowest repair priority. A contractor attended on 14 September 2021.
  3. In its stage 2 response on 20 October 2021, the landlord said the leak was identified on 14 September 2021 and a further appointment took place on 10 October 2021 in which the contractor was “informed that the leak was ongoing, having being previously fixed”. The landlord has not provided any repair records that show it had resolved the leak. Furthermore, the resident disputed that an appointment was attended on 10 October 2021, particularly as it was a Sunday. He also said he was given conflicting information regarding the alleged visit when speaking to the landlord’s call centre. The Service has not been provided with repair records to confirm the appointment took place, so the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it fulfilled its repair obligations or properly investigated the matter in its complaint process.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated the contractor identified damage to the roof, and scaffolding would be erected on 22 October 2021 for further investigation. It said it would update the resident on the progress and monitor the repairs. In its stage 3 response on 15 November 2021, the landlord reiterated that it would provide a timeframe for the works, including the necessary consultation and procurement processes, and arrange the works without further delay. There is no evidence that the resident received the agreed timeframe for the works, so the landlord failed to comply with the proposed resolution.
  5. Although the landlord has provided its repair records for both the resident’s property and the entire building, the information provided lacks sufficient detail for the Service to understand what action was taken. The landlord is expected to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In this case, the record-keeping has hindered the Service from being able to fully ascertain what took place, and therefore, the full extent of the detriment.
  6. The landlord’s repair records on 25 November 2021 stated a post-inspection took place and noted ‘Completed, please see property folder and contact log for evidence’. As the further supporting information has not been provided, the Service is unable to determine what works took place to resolve the roof leak.
  7. The landlord subsequently advised the resident a specialist contractor attended on 17 December 2021 to inspect the roof and could not find much wrong, except for a couple broken tiles which were replaced. However, this conclusion is not supported by additional evidence provided. The resident chased an update on the repairs on 4 February 2022, as he said it had rained and the roof had leaked. The landlord’s application to the First Tier Tribunal for dispensation of consultation requirements in April 2022 stated that it erected scaffolding on 9 December 2021 and completed roof repairs on 7 February 2022. As such, it appears that there were further roof repairs required to resolve the leak, and the landlord failed to properly manage the resident’s expectations regarding the progress of the works. 
  8. Both the resident’s correspondence with the Service and the landlord’s repair records confirmed the roof repairs were completed on 28 April 2022, to resolve the leak. The repair records show that further repairs were completed between September 2022 and January 2023. Although the repair records lack sufficient detail relating to what the works were, it indicates that the landlord did not put in place an effective and lasting fix. There is no evidence that the resident reported any further recurrences of the leak or chased the repair. Nonetheless, the additional repairs will likely have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. The length of time between the resident’s first report of the leak in August 2021 and it being resolved in April 2022 was unreasonable. It is particularly evident that the landlord failed to act in line with its repair obligations between August and November 2021, as it failed to take any substantial action to resolve the leak. This resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly as he had a newborn baby. He also spent significant time and effort pursuing the issue.
  10. The resident was able to claim on his insurance for damage, but the damage could not be addressed until permanent repairs to the roof were completed. Although the landlord signposted the resident to his insurance regarding this damage, it failed to note or address the impact of the roof work delays on the repairs to address the internal damage. Therefore, further compensation should be considered for the length of time taken to resolve the issue.
  11. The landlord offered £250 compensation in its final response for both the leak and the guttering repairs. In this case although there has been no permanent impact and the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, it failed to address the detriment to the resident or offer proportionate compensation to the failings identified in this report. As a result, in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord should offer the resident £350, in place of the compensation already offered.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In place of the compensation already offered, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £300 for the failings in its handling of repairs to the guttering. 
    2. £400 for its failings in its handling of the leak.
  2. The landlord should provide the Service with proof of the total payment within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record-keeping practices, to ensure it keeps clear repair records including when the work orders are raised and completed and details of the repairs.