London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202206884)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206884

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

15 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to fix a leaking roof.
2. Complaints handling.
3. Knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a second floor flat on the top floor. For ease of reading the resident and her husband, who is her representative, will both be referred to as the resident within this report. The landlord is a council. The resident lets the property to a private tenant, who will be referred to as the tenant in this report.
Under the lease the landlord covenants, or agrees, to “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building…and to take reasonable steps to make good any defect affecting the structure” which includes the roof and external walls.
The landlord has provided a copy of its tenancy conditions. Although noting the property is leasehold, and the resident does not have a tenancy with the landlord, the conditions state it will “maintain the structure and outside of your home (including our drains, gutters and outside pipes) where it is practical and cost-effective to do so.” The conditions do not give any timeframes for repairs to be completed within.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases, and to make adherence to this part of the service level agreement with third parties, for example contractors.
The landlord has told this Service that it did not have a complaints policy in place when the resident made her complaint. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiry the landlord told this Service “At the time the complaint was made information was held on our website and not a formal policy…The [current] policy is the one which has been worked to for a number of years and was published on our website. Following work with the compliance team this was translated into a formal policy which is now published.” The landlord published its current complaints policy in March 2023.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Paragraph 1.2 states that a complaint should be defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days and should address all elements of the resident’s complaint within its response (paragraph 5.8). The landlord should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).

Summary of events

The resident called the landlord on 6 December 2021 to report a leak from the roof. The landlord’s records say that the resident told it her tenant had reported that the ceiling had “come down”.
On 14 December 2021, 20 December 2021 and 30 December 2021, the resident called the landlord to chase up the repairs. The landlord’s records state that a repair had been booked for 8 December 2021 however the resident had said that no-one attended.
The resident called the landlord again on 11 January 2022 to report the leak was still ongoing. The landlord’s records state that the resident asked for an urgent appointment as “the continuous leak is causing flooding, damage and discomfort especially in the kitchen”.
On 26 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. The landlord has not provided a copy of this email to this Service, however, the resident included it within her later complaint. Her email was about the leak and no repairs having been done by the landlord to fix it.
The landlord’s records state it chased the repair internally on 3 March 2022, following a complaint, as no-one had attended to repair the leak since it was first reported.
On 31 March 2022 the resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage one complaint. Her complaint was about the issues raised in her email of 26 January 2022, which she set out in full. Those issues were:
1. That she had reported the leak on 6 December 2021, and had been told the roofing contractor would repair it on 8 December 2021, but no-one had attended.
2. She had made several telephone calls to the landlord but had not been told when the leak would be repaired.
3. She had been told her contact details would be passed to the roofing contractor to contact her directly, but she had not received a call.
4. Whenever it rained the roof leaked and caused further damage to the property which caused severe inconvenience to the tenant.
5. It had been almost two months and she had still not been told when the roof would be repaired.
6. She felt like she had been ignored, wanted the landlord to acknowledge the problem and tell her how it was going to fix it.
In the landlord’s email of 1 April 2022 it acknowledged the complaint and advised that a full response would be issued by 14 April 2022. It then provided its stage one response by email on 12 April 2022, when it said:
1. It had raised a repair to its roofing contractor for 8 December 2021 to find and repair the leak, however, “due to an error on the system the event on the job got closed down meaning the appointment…did not go ahead.”
2. It was “extremely sorry” and had reinstated the repair on 29 March 2022.
3. The roofing contractor had reported back that scaffolding was needed, which it expected to be erected that week. The roofing contractor expected to complete the repairs by the end of the week beginning 22 April 2022.
4. How to escalate the complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 April 2022 in response to its stage one complaint response. She said that the landlord had not fully responded to her complaint and specifically had not explained why the roofing contractors had not attended, why the repair had not been treated as urgent after her many calls to the landlord, why it had not replied to her previous email and why it had not mentioned a previous roof leak in 2019. She also said it did not explain why the landlord took until 29 March 2022 to reinstate the repair job, and why it had not contacted her to tell her this. She also said “whether this all constitutes grounds for a Review, as mentioned [in its stage one response], I leave to you. There clearly is something fundamentally wrong with the [landlord’s] procedures.”
On 28 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She said she had been told the repairs would be completed the week of 22 April 2022 but had not heard anything further from the landlord. It is not clear whether the landlord replied to the resident’s email and this Service has not been provided with a copy of any response by the landlord.
The landlord’s records state on 11 May 2022 that scaffolding was to be erected that week for the repairs to be carried out.
In internal emails on 16 May 2022 the landlord confirmed that the resident had made a claim to its insurers.
The landlord’s records state that it emailed the roofing contractor on 27 May 2022, and 14 June 2022, to ask if the repairs had been completed. It is not known whether the landlord received any replies to its emails and the landlord has not provided copies of its emails or any replies to this Service.
On 17 June 2022 the resident called the landlord to chase the repair. She said scaffolding was erected on 29 April 2022, but she had not heard from the landlord about the repair. The landlord’s notes say that the roofing contractor advised it the repair had been completed on 7 June 2022, however it is not possible to tell from the records when this note was added.
The landlord’s records state that it emailed the roofing contractor on 20 June 2022 and 22 June 2022. The landlord noted in its records on 27 June 2022 that the roof repair had been completed.
The resident contacted this Service and on 1 September 2022 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to ask it to provide its stage two complaint response.
The same day the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint escalation which it said was requested by the Ombudsman. In its email it also said the roof repair had been completed on 27 June 2022, but acknowledged that the resident had told it on 5 July 2022 that the roof was still leaking. The landlord has not provided evidence of the repair having been completed, or a record of the resident’s contact on 5 July 2022, to this Service.
On 2 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that the tenant had reported there was still a leak when it rained, and that the tenant had reported having had “two bowls on the work surface catching water from the rain last night. The situation, she says, remains unchanged. She works from home and has at no time been aware of anyone working on the roof, and doubts that anyone has done so, although scaffolding remains in place.”
In an internal email on 5 September 2022 the landlord asked for an urgent inspection of the roof. It raised a repair job for this on 7 September 2022, and emailed the resident on 8 September 2022 to say that it was going to inspect the roof, with the roofing contractor, that day.
The landlord’s repair records state that it carried out repairs to the roof on 13 September 2022 when it renewed some roofing felt.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. In its response it:
1. Accepted that it did not attend when the resident first reported the leak and did not communicate with her.
2. Admitted that the 22 April 2022 deadline for the repairs to be completed “passed without explanation or apology”.
3. Said it could not “establish why the original job was not re-appointed in response to receiving calls from [the resident] in January or February 2022” and that “several opportunities were missed to have stemmed the leak much earlier.” It should have told the resident what actions it was going to take and when.
4. Said “a surveyor should have been asked to attend to carry out an inspection and issue further instructions in response to being told, in early July 2022, that water was still entering your home” but that it had taken no action.
5. Admitted that it had departed from its policy and procedure in its handling of the repair.
6. Said the resident escalated her complaint in September 2022.
7. Accepted that its “failure to make the property safe at the start or keep [the resident] informed about delays contributed to the problem. Communication has been poor throughout…This created undue stress that could have been avoided.”
8. Confirmed that repairs to the roof had been carried out on 9 September 2022.
9. Noted that the resident had made an insurance claim for the cost of remedial works to restore the property and that this was being handled separately as an insurance claim.
10. Accepted that it had “fell well below” its service standards and apologised for this. It fully upheld the complaint and offered £800 in compensation.
11. Gave details on how to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

In the resident’s email to the landlord of 21 September 2022 she detailed the stress, anxiety, frustration and anger caused by the landlord’s handling of the leak and roof repair. She said “I cannot begin to describe the enormous stress and anxiety that this has caused…; the anger and frustration at being completely powerless to get the [landlord] to take any action; being constantly ignored or, on occasion, lied to; the incalculable hours of our time that this has involved…It would be fair to say that this subject – a simple roof repair – has dominated our lives for months, all due to the [landlord’s] ineptitude.” She said she was communicating with the landlord’s insurers about her claim, however, this was being delayed. She then emailed the landlord again on 2 October 2022, advising that the tenant had reported the roof was still leaking after heavy rain.
The following day in an email the landlord asked the roofing contractor to reinspect the roof and it reported back that an appointment had been made with the resident for 5 October 2022.
On 6 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again. She said the tenant had advised that the roofing contractor attended, but that the roof was still leaking. The landlord’s records state that the roofing contractor said it attended that day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 October 2022 to ask if the tenant had reported any further leaks. The resident replied on 12 October 2022 and said the tenant had reported the roof was still leaking. The landlord replied that day to say the repair had been escalated to a “senior officer” to arrange for an inspection as soon as possible.
The roofing contractor provided an update to the landlord, included within its repair records, on 13 October 2022. The record said the roofing contractor attended that day, “carried out further intrusive works and [had] found a leak under the hip line which has been renewed.”
On 18 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that the tenant had reported that the roof was still leaking. She said she did not understand why the landlord had carried out “quick fixes” rather than addressing the problem and completing a full repair. She said that the landlord had not taken the problem seriously. The resident emailed the landlord again on 2 November 2022 as she had not heard from it, and no-one had come to fix the leak. The landlord replied that the roofing contractor was carrying out works that day.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 4 November 2022. She said it was disappointing that no action had been taken until then. Her tenant had reported that “the roofing contractor attended again and apparently attempted another quick fix, with the result that the roof is still leaking” and that it was almost a year since she had first reported the problem.
On 5 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again and said that the tenant had reported the scaffolding had been taken down, even though the roof was still leaking. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 November 2022 to ask for an update. The landlord replied to say it had asked for the scaffolding to be put back up. The landlord emailed the resident again on 9 November 2022 to confirm the scaffolding was back in place and to arrange a further inspection.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 November 2022 and 18 November 2022 to ask for an update. The landlord replied on 18 November 2022 and said that the roofing contractor had attended, and a follow-up appointment had been booked for 21 November 2022.
On 23 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said she had not heard from it. She said the tenant had reported “several people came again to take pictures and look at the wall…They came in the morning and did patching again, after they left the rain started and it’s raining inside as before, no change.” The resident emailed the landlord again on 1 December 2022 to chase for a response.
The landlord replied to the resident on 8 December 2022. It apologised for the delay in its response and said repairs had been completed on 25 November 2022. It said it had asked the roofing contractor if any further repairs were needed, however, it “believe[d] that although this has taken some time [it had] sourced the problem and rectified the issue.”
On 21 December 2022 the resident replied to the landlord’s email, reiterating the ongoing severe stress the situation was causing for her and the tenant and advising that the roof was still leaking.
In emails with the roofing contractor, on 21 December 2022, the landlord asked it to reinspect to try to find out why the resident was still reporting water penetration and to provide a report. It is not known whether a report was produced, and a copy has not been provided to this Service.
The landlord emailed the roofing contractor on 13 January 2023, 16 February 2023, and 28 February 2023 to ask for an update. The roofing contractor replied on 28 February 2023 to say it had inspected that day and a bigger scaffolding was required. In its email to the landlord on 7 March 2023, the roofing contractor advised that it had completed extensive exploratory works and repairs on 3 March 2023.
The resident has told this Service that the landlord appears to have repaired the leak and has carried out remedial works inside the property. She said that the landlord has not contacted her about the repairs it has carried out and communication has been very poor. She said the only way she knows what works have been carried out is via her tenant, who has sent her photographs. From the photographs, she said, it appears a poor patch repair has been carried out to the kitchen ceiling, some poor-quality painting to the wall, and the coving has not been reinstated. The resident said she did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation and is yet to complete her claim with its insurers. The resident has also told this Service that she and her husband are both in their late 70s and the whole experience has caused them undue stress.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to fix a leaking roof

It is accepted by the landlord that the resident reported the roof leak on 6 December 2021 and that it was responsible, under the lease, to repair this. The landlord said it raised a repair for 8 December 2021, but this appointment did not go ahead which was a failing. The landlord has not provided any policy or procedure which includes repairs response times, however, it would be reasonable to suggest that a roof leak should be repaired as soon as possible.
Despite the resident contacting the landlord to chase the repair three times in December 2021, and twice in January 2022, it did not take any action to repair the roof. The resident’s email on 26 January 2022, which was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction with the lack of actions by the landlord, prompted the landlord to chase the repair on 3 March 2022. However, it continued to take no action until 29 March 2022. By this point two and a half months had passed since the resident reported the repair, which was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord failed to communicate with the resident about the repair. Only after she made her formal complaint did the landlord tell her what action it had taken on 29 March 2022 in its response on 12 April 2022, and that was a failing.
The landlord said the reason the original repair did not go ahead on 8 December 2022 was due to “an error on the system”. In its stage two response it said it could not say why the repair was not carried out after the resident chase it and that was also a failing.
In its stage one response the landlord said the repairs would be completed by the week of 22 April 2022. However, it accepted in its stage two response that the deadline had “passed without explanation or apology”.
From the records, the landlord first carried out repairs on 7 June 2022 or 27 June 2022, which was around six months after the resident first reported the leak. This was an unacceptable delay, for which the landlord gave no explanation.
Between 5 July 2022, when the resident reported that the roof was still leaking, and 3 March 2023 the landlord carried out six further repairs to fix the leak. By this time over a year had passed since the leak was first reported. During this time the resident had to chase the landlord on many occasions to report that the leak had not been fixed.
In it stage two response on 15 September 2022 the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledging specific failings and the avoidable stress these had caused. It accepted that it fell well below its service standards and offered £800 compensation.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In its complaint responses the landlord apologised for and accepted its failings. It said that it recognised the impact these would have had on the resident. However, it did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the complaint and did not say how it would prevent similar failings from happening again, which was itself also a failing. It would have been helpful if the landlord had been able to identify why the failings occurred, whether due to its staff or its systems, and how it would put this right, and this was a missed opportunity.
In relation to the effects on the resident, she clearly explained these in her email to the landlord on 21 September 2022. The compensation offered by the landlord did not fully reflect the distress, inconvenience, frustration, time, and trouble caused to her. There was severe maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord pay £1,500 in compensation to reflect this.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2022, and while she said she was “on the verge of submitting a formal complaint” her email was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction about the lack of action by the landlord. The landlord has told this Service that it did not have a written complaints policy at the time, but information about complaints on its website. Its website was updated in March 2023 with its current policy, which the Ombudsman notes is not compliant with the Code. However, following paragraph 1.2 of the Code, the resident’s email should have been treated as a complaint by the landlord in January 2022, and it not having done so was a failing.
When the resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a complaint on 31 March 2022, the landlord did respond within eight working days on 12 April 2022. However, it failed to fully respond to the resident’s complaint which was a failing under paragraph 5.8 of the Code.
When the resident replied to the landlord’s stage one response on 14 April 2022, she clearly set out her continued dissatisfaction requested a review. This was clearly a request to escalate her complaint to stage two, however the landlord failed to do this. The resident believed she had asked to escalate her complaint, as not having received a stage two response, she contacted this Service and asked the Ombudsman to chase the landlord for one.
Following the Ombudsman’s email to the landlord on 1 September 2022 it acknowledged the escalation that day and provided its stage two response ten working days later, on 15 September 2022. This would have been Code compliant if the request had been made on 1 September 2022. The landlord said in its stage two response that the complaint had been escalated in September 2022 and failed to recognise the request had first been made on 14 April 2022. Taking this into account, the resident had waited 106 working days for her stage two complaint response, which was unacceptable. There was maladministration, which caused further inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. And order has been made that the landlord pay £400 in compensation to reflect this impact.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord. In particular:
1. The landlord’s contact and repairs records do not contain enough information, and their appearance makes them difficult to read and understand, including on which date which events occurred.
2. It is not clear whether the landlord replied to the resident’s email of 28 April 2022 and a copy of any response has not been provided.
3. The landlord’s records state that it emailed the roofing contractor on 27 May 2022 and 14 June 2022. It is not known whether the landlord received any replies, and if it did, these have not been provided.
4. The landlord has not provided evidence of the repair having been completed on 7 June 2022 or 27 June 2022, or a record of the resident’s contact on 5 July 2022.
5. On 21 December 2022 the landlord asked the roofing contractor to provide a report. It is not known whether a report was produced, and a copy has not been provided to this Service.
The landlord accepted in its complaint responses that the appointment on 8 December 2021 did not go ahead due to a system error, and that it could not establish why the job was not reappointed after the resident chased it. Both responses suggest that the landlord’s information management is at fault as it could not provide any further information to explain these failings. n addition, the landlord has not provided any inspection reports, surveyor’s reports, repairs completion reports, or any other evidence of the roof repairs carried out, aside from two undated photographs.
The lack of records and poor quality of knowledge and information management delayed the completion of the resident’s repair. It caused distress, frustration and inconvenience to the resident who had to constantly chase the landlord for updates and to act.
Overall, there was maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord pay £200 in compensation to reflect the impact these failings had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to fix a leaking roof.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Complaints handling.
2. Knowledge and information management.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to fix a leaking roof as it took over six months after the leak was first reported to attempt to repair the roof. It carried out multiple repairs but only managed to stop the leak over a year after it was first reported. Its communications with the resident were poor and it had no explanation for why it delayed in raising repairs.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling as it did not raise a complaint when the resident first emailed it with her expression of dissatisfaction. Its stage one response did not respond to her complaint in full. It also failed to escalate her complaint when the resident asked it to, and only did so after the Ombudsman intervened.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management as the landlord’s records were incomplete, difficult to read, and evidence was either missing or not provided. The landlord was unable to give full explanations for delays which indicates poor management of records.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £2,000 made up of:
  1. £1,500 to reflect the distress, inconvenience, frustration, time, and trouble caused to the resident by its failings in handling the roof repair.
  2. £300 to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaints handling failures.
  3. £200 to reflect the distress, frustration, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its knowledge and information management failings.
3. Provide information on what final repairs were carried out to repair the roof, and a report of the works completed if one exists, to this Service and to the resident.
4. Provide information on what remedial repairs were carried out to the property, including any report, before and after photographs, or job notes to this Service and to the resident.
5. Review the repairs history to find out why the delays occurred, why multiple repairs were attempted before the leak was fixed and produce recommendations on how it will prevent a reoccurrence of a similar situation with a future roof repair. Evidence of this review and these recommendations are to be provided to this Service.
6. Carry out a self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and provide the results of this assessment to this Service, or provide its assessment if one has been completed within the last six months.
7. Carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and provide the results of this assessment to this Service.
8. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.