London Borough of Ealing (202229501)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229501

London Borough of Ealing

25 October 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak into the property and the maintenance of the roof.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is the leaseholder of a 3-bedroom first-floor flat in a block. The landlord owns the freehold of the building.
3. The resident formally complained to the landlord at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 5 December 2022. He stated that, when it rained, rainwater leaked into his property via the kitchen ceiling, which he believed was a direct consequence of a poorly maintained roof. Despite previously reporting the issue via the landlord’s emergency line on 2 November 2022, the resident was made to call it back on the following morning. He stated that, during this call, it informed him that, as a leaseholder, it was his responsibility to make good and/or repair the kitchen ceiling, which he disagreed with.
4. The resident noted that he had been advised by the landlord that the roof repair work would be completed within 28 days, but that it had not contacted him about this since. This was despite it telling him that the job would be treated as a priority. The resident stated that he had experienced several leaks during downpours, and that there was an additional crack in his kitchen ceiling.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 December 2022. It upheld his complaint and apologised for the delay in carrying out the roofing and carpentry works. The landlord stated that its current contractor had been unable to deliver these repairs as part of their contractual obligation. Initially the agreement had been to instruct another suitable contractor within 28 days to deliver outstanding repairs, but it had taken longer than expected to find one. However, the landlord stated that, within the next month, it would update the resident as to when the new contractor was expected to start. Its new contractor would be prioritising the jobs that had been categorised as high intervention or with health and safety risks. Once these had been completed, it would be able to respond to his repair requests.
6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure on 16 December 2022. He stated that he had a potential health and safety issue, and that he had suffered poor living conditions for 6 weeks. The resident wanted the landlord to commit to an action plan with agreed timelines to repair the leak in his roof. He explained that he had not been updated on when works would commence, as it had promised, and additional cracks had since appeared on his ceiling.
7. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 13 February 2023 and upheld the resident’s complaint again. It acknowledged its delay in providing him with a response and apologised for this failure. The landlord stated that it had entered a transitioning period with new contractors, which included discussing potential start dates and scope of works. It apologised for the delays with the roof repairs and stated that it could not provide the resident with a timeline for their completion. It said that it hoped to share further positive news to all residents awaiting roofing repairs.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He wants the landlord to repair the roof, redecorate his kitchen, and compensate him for the distress he has experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has raised concerns regarding the effect that the leak and living in a damp environment has had on his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and the impact on his health. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine whether someone has been injured, a health condition has been made worse, liability for this, or to award damages for this in the way that the courts or an insurer able to obtain an expert opinion of this might. These would be more appropriate and effective means of considering such matters. Therefore, this investigation will instead only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its contractual and policy obligations regarding the leak, roof maintenance and its complaint handling, and if this was fair in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak into the property and the maintenance of the roof

10. According to the resident’s lease, the landlord is responsible for keeping the resident’s building in “good and substantial repair and condition”, and for insuring this against loss or damage. The landlord’s responsive repairs operational procedure says that it is responsible for repairs to the building’s structure, exterior and common parts, within the same working day for emergencies, 15 working days for urgent and routine repairs, and 60 working days for planned works. Its repairs and maintenance summary of responsibilities confirms that it is responsible for roofs, and its leaseholders are responsible for their ceilings and internal plaster. Therefore, when the resident reported a leak that was suspected to originate from the roof, the landlord had a responsibility to investigate and carry out any necessary repairs for this.
11. The evidence provided by it shows that the landlord raised a roof repair job on 3 November 2022. The resident stated that he was told that it would attend to carry out temporary works to make the ceiling safe, and it would then provide him with a report outlining the next steps required to complete a communal roof repair job. He further stated that he was advised later that day by the landlord that it would raise a new job for the roof but, as a leaseholder, it was his responsibility to make good the kitchen ceiling. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a record of this communication, however it would have been the landlord’s responsibility under the resident’s lease to insure the area against loss or damage that it was responsible for. It would therefore have been inappropriate of it to only advise him to make this good himself, despite his responsibility for his ceilings and internal plaster, without also advising him as to claiming for the works or their cost from it or its insurer.
12. According to the landlord’s responsive repairs operational procedure, when a resident reports a defect in their home, the defect will be assessed by a surveyor and then escalated to the homeownership team. Despite it promising the resident that an operative would attend before 5pm on the same day, in accordance with the procedure’s requirement for emergency repairs, this did not happen. He was later told by the landlord that the matter would be addressed within 28 days, but this too was not carried out. It failed to take reasonable steps to meet the expectations that it gave to the resident about attending the roof leak at his building, which would have been likely to have led to distress and frustration for him.
13. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response on 16 December 2022 that it delayed attending the resident’s building’s roof leak because its external contractor at the time was unable to fulfil their contractual obligations. It further explained that it had planned to hire another contractor within 28 days to deliver these outstanding repairs but, due to unexpected delays, it had taken longer to do this. It is acknowledged that the contractor not being able to complete the work to repair the roof was outside of the landlord’s control. Nevertheless, the landlord was still responsible for ensuring that a repair took place within a reasonable amount of time. It was appropriate that it advised that it would look to hire another contractor to undertake the work, but this should have been done promptly. It is clear that the landlord did not do this. 
14. There were also further delays in the landlord attending the resident’s building. The landlord said that this was because its new contractor had to concentrate on jobs requiring high intervention and posing health and safety risks. It did not consider the resident’s building’s roof to meet this criteria. The landlord also said that it was likely that the works to repair the roof would not start until the new year. While it is reasonable for a landlord to appropriately prioritise its works, it must still have regard for its repairing obligations. As such, it would have been expected to have, at a minimum, carried out temporary repairs to the roof to contain the leak and any ongoing inconvenience. It also would have been appropriate for the landlord to have given the resident a specific timeframe within which works would commence and likely be completed, but it did not do so.
15. The landlord stated in its final stage complaint response on 13 February 2023 that it had reached a conclusion with its new contractors and was discussing potential start dates and scope of works for the resident’s building’s roof repairs. Despite this, it confirmed to the Ombudsman in August 2023 that the roof repairs were still outstanding, and it was unable to provide a timeline for when the repairs would be carried out. The resident has also stated that the repairs to the roof remain outstanding. This continued delay to the repairs was therefore further poor service on the landlord’s part.
16. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether there has been any redress offered by the landlord. Where a remedy has been offered, we will consider whether this has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.
17. The resident has stated that he would like the landlord to redecorate his kitchen. It was required by his lease to insure against loss or damage, and so it should have signposted him to make a claim for the redecoration works to be carried out, or for their cost. It was therefore unreasonable of the landlord to fail to do so to enable the resident to obtain these works or a reimbursement of their cost from it. It failed to act fairly or put things right.
18. Moreover, the delays in the landlord repairing the resident’s building’s roof, or offering a temporary fix for this, were unreasonable and not in line with its contractual and policy obligations. It is concerning that the works remain outstanding, and that he has still been given no indication on when these works might take place, or how long they will take to complete. The landlord has not been forthcoming with this information and, therefore, has failed to manage the resident’s expectations appropriately. This has meant that failings have been found in its handling of this matter.
19. While the landlord recognised that there were issues with the handling of the resident’s repair request in its final stage complaint response, it has not offered any other redress or shown any learning from the outcome of his case, other than its complaint responses’ apologies to him for its repair delays. There has also been no recognition that the issue remains outstanding and has continued to impact him.
20. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out our approach to putting things right. The guidance suggests payments of up to £600 may remedy considerable delays in providing a service to a resident, such as responding to a repair. Given that these are the circumstances in this case, and that the matter remains outstanding, the landlord has been ordered below to pay £600 compensation to the resident in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that he experienced from the fact that 11 months have passed with no progress.
21. The landlord has also been ordered below to ensure that the works are inspected by a surveyor, the outstanding repairs and their details are identified and shared, and that the resident is kept updated on their progress, as well as to provide him with information as to how to pursue a claim for works to redecorate his kitchen or the cost of doing so. It has additionally been recommended below to review its staff’s relevant training needs to try and prevent its failings in handling his reports of a leak and roof maintenance from occurring again in the future.

The landlord’s complaint handling

22. Where specific housing-related complaints procedures exist within local authorities such as the landlord, these are expected to comply with the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (‘the Code’). We are aware that the landlord previously had a corporate complaints policy that differed from the Code, but that our 10-working-day stage 1 complaint response timescale is now mirrored by the landlord’s target for housing-related complaints, according to its recent self assessment of its compliance against the Code. It also responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in this case within that timescale.
23. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy has 2 stages. Its response timescale for its final stage is 20 working days, in accordance with the Code. It states that, if it is necessary to extend the timescales, it will inform the resident of the reasons these cannot be met and will provide an amended response date.
24. The resident escalated his complaint on 16 December 2022. The landlord provided its final stage complaint response 18 working days outside of its corporate complaints policy’s 20-working-day response timescale on 13 February 2023. This was an unreasonable delay that was worsened by its failure to maintain contact with the resident and update him on the reasons for the delays in responding, in accordance with its policy and the Code. It is noted that the landlord apologised in its final stage response for its delay in responding, which was an appropriate action for it to take. However, this was not proportionate to remedy its failure in delaying the response and not providing an update on this.
25. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests payments from £50 will remedy instances of failure where the landlord has caused disappointment to the resident by delaying its responses. In line with this, it has been ordered below to pay him £50 compensation to recognise any time and trouble that he would have experienced from this delay. This is also because the landlord failed to provide the reasons for its delay in providing a timely response, and therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It has additionally been recommended below to review its staff’s relevant training needs to try and prevent its failings in handling his complaint from occurring again in the future.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak into the property and the maintenance of the roof.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

28. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £650 total compensation within 4 weeks, comprised of:
       1. £600 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that he experienced from its failures in the handling of his reports of a water leak and roof maintenance.
       2. £50 for any time and trouble that he experienced from its failings in complaint handling.
    2. Arrange for a surveyor to inspect the roof of the resident’s building within 4 weeks. It must identify the works required to resolve any outstanding repairs, and share the details of the works required, the likely timescale, and the expected completion date with both the resident and the Ombudsman in writing within 4 weeks, and then provide him with regular updates on the progress of the works until their completion.
    3. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to provide him with information as to how to pursue a claim with it or its insurer to obtain works to redecorate his kitchen or a reimbursement of their cost.
29. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its responsive repairs operational procedure and repairs and maintenance summary of responsibilities, to seek to ensure that its failings in handling the resident’s reports of a leak and roof maintenance do not occur again in the future.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its corporate complaints policy and the Code, to seek to ensure that its failings in handling the resident’s complaint do not occur again in the future.
30. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.