One Housing Group Limited (202201421)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201421

One Housing Group Limited

20 December 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. a leak to the building roof;
2. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a lease for a two-bedroomed, third–floor flat, dating from 8 January 2016. The landlord holds a head lease for 13 flats within the resident’s building.
Under the resident’s shared ownership lease, he is not responsible for the maintenance of the common and structural parts of the building. This responsibility is split between the landlord and a managing agent, which acts on behalf of the building’s freeholder.
The management company is responsible for the maintenance of the roof of the building.
In March 2022 we published a spotlight report on landlords’ relationships with managing agents, which included recommendations around understanding of repairs responsibilities, and communication, that are relevent to the events of this case. It can be viewed on our website: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Spotlight-Report-Managing-Agents-March-2022.pdf
The resident’s shared ownership lease sets out that he is responsible for providing carpets or other suitable floor coverings inside his flat.
Section 6.2 of the resident’s lease sets out that the landlord shall not be liable for any damage suffered by the leaseholder or his family through a defect in the building, the actions of a member of its staff who had not acted in line with its policies, or damage to the premises due to the overflowing of service media (for example, pipes), except where this liability may be covered by insurance that had been set up by the landlord. In practice, this means that the landlord would not pay for damage that occurred within the resident’s flat directly, but would expect a claim to be made through either the buildings insurance, which in this case was put in place by the managing agent, or through its public liability insurance. The resident would also be expected to take out contents insurance to cover potential damage that may arise and which would not fall under one of these two insurance policies.
Section 6.6 of the resident’s lease sets out that if the premises are “rendered unfit for use” after damage caused by a risk covered by the landlord’s insurance, then rent is to be suspended (not charged) until it is restored to a habitable condition.
The landlord has confirmed it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has advised that at the time of the leak, his partner had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy during the period of repairs and the associated temporary move away from the property. He has explained the chemotherapy left his partner more vulnerable to infections and other health risks.
The resident has highlighted that he and his partner had made their home a safe environment during the coronavirus pandemic, and it was distressing to have to move out of this. We acknowledge that the risk of transmission of COVID-19, and the effects of the various associated restrictions and government guidance in place during the period covered by his complaint, would have had an exacerbating effect on the resident and his partner.
Another word for a temporary move from the property, organised by the landlord, is a ‘decant’, and these terms will be used in this report interchangeably to mean the same thing.
The landlord has explained that at the time the resident submitted his stage 1 complaint in 2020, it operated a one-stage complaints process. It subsequently amended its complaints policy to include a two-stage process from 4 January 2021, which brought its policy in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
The landlord’s complaints policy set out that claims for damages would be passed to its insurance team rather than dealt with through its complaints process.
The landlord’s complaints policy set out that it would acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within two working days, and issue a response within 10 working days. Its January 2021 policy set out a period of 20 days for it to provide a response at stage 2.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the below timescales for repairs:
1. Emergency: 24 hours to attend and make-safe;
2. Urgent: Attend within three working days and complete within five working days;
3. Routine: Attend within five working days, compete within 20 working days.

Summary of Events

On 18 June 2020 the resident reported a leak to his ceiling, believed to originate from the roof of the building. The landlord noted that this had happened after heavy rainfall, and raised a routine repair for its roofing contractor to inspect and clear all the outlets (understood to mean the drainage) on the roof.
The landlord’s roofing contractor attended on 4 July 2020 and reported back to the landlord that it had used a cherry picker to access the roof, and had confirmed all outlets were clear.
On 28 August 2020 the landlord received another report of a leak (believed to be made by the resident), and it raised another routine repair to its contractor.
On 14 September 2020 the landlord’s contractor attended, removed the “green roof and insulation”, and applied a liquid rubber coating to seal a hole in the roof felt.
On 4 October 2020 the landlord raised an out-of-hours repair for another roof leak to its plumbing contractor (again believed to be in response to a report by the resident). The contractor attended and reported back to the landlord that the leak had been ongoing for over a month and needed a roofer to attend.
On 5 October 2020 the resident reported that the water from the leak had seeped through his smoke alarms. The landlord advised that the roofing contractor would be in touch with him that day to confirm when it would attend.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 9 October 2020, and reported back to it that the building was relatively new and the roof should therefore still be under warranty. It asked the landlord to check this, and advised that it would need to take up a larger area of the roof if the landlord wanted it to continue its investigations, as it had not been able to establish the problem during its visit.
On 13 October 2020 the landlord recorded an emergency repair to make safe the smoke alarm, and any other electrics in the resident’s property that had been affected by the leak. It advised the resident that it was looking into who was responsible for the roof repair, and checking the status of the warranty. Its internal records show it tried contacting the managing agent, and highlighted that the roof was under 10 years old.
The landlord has advised us that its contractor attended on 13 October 2020 and confirmed that the resident’s kitchen smoke alarm had been affected by water, disconnected it, and fitted a temporary smoke alarm.
On 14 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord with photos of the damage caused by the leak and details of the impact on his household’s health. He told the landlord he would withhold his service charge, and would hold it responsible for his loss of income if he had to take time off work. The landlord has advised it then proceeded to log a stage 1 complaint, and noted that the resident had queried why there had been a delay in repairing the leak that he had reported “for months”, and requested an apology and compensation.
The landlord said it raised a repair job to its electrician and scheduled a visit for 9 November 2020. The landlord’s internal discussions from that day show it later confirmed that the managing agent for the estate was responsible for the roof maintenance, and it tried again to contact it. It asked the managing agent and the managing agent’s repairs contractor to contact the resident, to advise him of the process for repairs and how to claim for damages caused to his flat. The landlord sent an email to them emphasising the safety concern for the ceiling, which was “constantly dripping water”. The managing agent’s repairs contractor spoke with the landlord and confirmed it would attend that day.
The next day, 15 October 2020, the landlord and resident communicated by phone and email. The resident confirmed that the managing agent’s contractor had attended in the night and assessed the roof. He also reported that at 3:30am his ceiling had collapsed, and left a “six foot square” hole, and that his flat was cold and damp. He again detailed his partner’s health issues, as well as the fact he himself had taken the day off work due to stress. The resident requested immediate rehousing.
The resident has explained that the initial places the landlord offered to move him to were too far away, and he did not accept them on this basis.
The landlord contacted the managing agent that day, and shared photos of the resident’s water stained ceiling, and the aftermath of its collapse. It asked the agent to organise an urgent repair to the roof membrane. It advised it had exercised its discretion and agreed to make good the interior of the resident’s flat, but that it would be “remiss” to do this until the leak had been fixed. The landlord also shared the reports it had received from its own roofing contractor. It asked the agent to provide it with the contact details for the building insurance company.
The managing agent responded to the landlord, and noted that the invoice it had shared was from July 2020. It commented that the photos appeared to show a leak and staining that had appeared over “a significant period of time”. It questioned whether the landlord had been investigating the issue over the summer and had not advised the agent or requested its assistance, and asked for confirmation of when the resident first notified the landlord of the issue. It confirmed its roofing contractor would attend the next day to assess the works and provide a quote.
The landlord and resident spoke several times on 16 October 2020. The resident reported that more of the ceiling had fallen down, and the landlord sent the resident a formal stage 1 complaint acknowledgement, and confirmed it had found an alternative place for him and his partner to stay. The resident agreed to this offer, and he and his partner moved that day.
On 18 October 2020 the resident contacted the landlord, and said the accommodation it had provided was “comfortable” and “in a handy location”, but did not have parking. He explained he was having to pay £30 a day to park outside. He asked the landlord for a timeline of the predicted repairs, and that if they were to take longer than the initial seven days his accommodation had been booked for, the landlord avoid moving them again.
On 19 October 2020 the managing agent’s contractor completed the repairs to the roof.
On 21 October 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident regarding his complaint. The resident asked the landlord to make good the damage the leak had caused.
On 23 October 2020 the landlord contacted the managing agent with a list of the damage:
1. All of ceiling in need of replacement;
2. Laminate flooring damaged, assume it will all need replacement;
3. Dehumidifier required to dry out the property;
4. Electrics need to be checked and fire alarm replaced;
5. Patio doors in need of “overhaul” (assumed to be an ease and adjustment of their rolling mechanism);
6. Balcony decking in need of a clean and the astro turf to be replaced;
7. A fabric chair had been stained, and was in need of a commercial furniture clean;
8. Coffee table damaged;
9. The resident’s combined fan, heater and dehumidifier needed to be replaced.
The landlord’s contractor carried out repairs to the water-damaged ceiling and re-painting of the affected room between 26 October 2020 and 28 October 2020.
On 2 November 2020 the landlord sent an email to the managing agent, and referenced a telephone conversation during the previous week, in which it said the agent had advised it would look into whether or not the damage caused to the resident’s flooring was covered by the building insurance. The landlord asked for an urgent update.
The managing agent responded to the landlord on 3 November 2020 and asked for a specification of the flooring.
The resident has explained that he incurred parking fees totalling £337.04 whilst at the temporary accommodation. He asked the landlord to reimburse these on 4 November 2020, and it agreed to this the next day.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 November 2020. It:
1. Apologised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced in having to pursue the landlord for a resolution, and offered him £50 compensation for this;
2. Offered the resident an additional £50 compensation for its failure to meet its target timescales under the right to repair;
3. Told him its staff were now clear that the roof was the responsibility of the managing agent, and assured him there would not be delays in contacting it in future;
4. Advised him it had concluded its internal complaints process and signposted him to the Housing Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord’s electrical contractor attended the resident’s property, and replaced the heat detector in his kitchen.
Also on 9 November 2020, the landlord provided a specification of the resident’s laminate flooring to the managing agent.
The landlord chased the managing agent for a response regarding the flooring, on 20 November 2020.
The landlord reminded the managing agent, on 14 January 2021, that the resident’s contents insurer had advised the flooring was not covered under his policy and it would expect a claim to be submitted through the building insurance. It asked the agent to give it an update regarding the matter.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord forwarded photos of the damaged flooring to the agent, and estimated the cost to replace it to total £625. The managing agent responded the same day to advise it would not submit a claim to the building insurance, because it did not usually do this for anything under £3000 and there was a £250 excess. The landlord asked the agent for a copy of its policy, and chased the agent for this on 11 February 2021. The agent advised it was looking into “a solution for this” and would be back in touch “soon”.
On 21 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord after its property management contractor had contacted him about the outstanding rent and service charges. He explained he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and response to the leak, and noted that he had not heard from the landlord since February 2021 in regards to the ceiling repairs. He said he would “move forward” with the rent payments once the landlord had completed the repairs to the flooring that it had previously committed to him. He asked the member of staff chasing the arrears to visit his property and see the damage that had been caused.
On 24 June 2021, several members of the landlord’s staff held a meeting with the resident, in which they discussed the roughly £6000 in payments he had withheld because he wanted more compensation. The resident has explained to us that he found the number of people involved in the meeting intimidating.
The same day, the landlord chased the managing agent for the details of its policy regarding building insurance claims.
After the meeting, the landlord’s staff agreed to replace the affected flooring (which it said cost over £2000), and noted that it had repaired the ceiling and carried out internal decoration work. A member of staff called the resident on 25 June 2021 and confirmed he was happy with this decision.
The managing agent apologised for the delay in responding the landlord on 2 July 2021, and advised it would look into the insurance policy and come back to the landlord. On 6 July 2021 the managing agent advised the landlord that the excess on building insurance claims was currently £5000, and it would not therefore be able to claim for the damage through the policy.
Correspondence between the landlord and resident during July and August 2021 show that the landlord’s flooring contractor was in contact with the resident, and took measurements for the new flooring.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 1 September 2021, and set out the grounds on which he regarded his outstanding rent and service charge to still be “in dispute”. He referred to the landlord’s offer of “gestures of goodwill”, which he did not think was accurate as he thought it had only done the “minimum” of what it had to. The resident said that the managing agent had been “quick to fix the roof”, and the landlord has replastered the ceiling so he and his partner could return home, but things slowed after that with regards to the damage caused, “with a lot of heel digging and chasing”. He asked the landlord to offer a ”more appropriate” amount of compensation.
The resident chased the landlord for a response three more times between 20 September 2021 and 6 October 2021.
On 9 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, after it had contacted him regarding his arrears the day previously. He set out the three issues he wanted resolved:
1. The level of service he had received did not match the amount he was being charged. He thought it “absurd” to charge him when its service standard had resulted in him and his partner needing to leave their home “in the middle of a pandemic”;
2. An appropriate compensation amount to be offered;
3. He felt ignored by the landlord. It had been two months since his email of 1 September 2021.
The resident again chased the landlord for a response on 23 November 2021.
On 17 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord, and set out the long-term impact of the leak. He asked the landlord to compensate him £25,000 for the distress and anxiety he had experienced. He explained he had stopped paying his rent and service charge due to his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
The resident chased again for a response on 23 December 2021, and at this point the landlord offered to escalate his complaint. The landlord noted that the resident requested a member of staff be contacted instead of this, and that it warned him that due to the upcoming bank holidays he would not receive a response “so soon”. Its internal discussions show it subsequently decided that it would not be possible to resolve the matter “informally”, due to the large sum the resident had requested.
The landlord called the resident on 24 December 2021 to let him know the issues he had raised were “on [its] radar”. Its internal correspondence discussed that there had been a delay because an email sent at the end of November 2021 between colleagues had been missed by the recipient.
On 1 January 2022 the landlord decided that it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. The landlord spoke with the resident to discuss this on 5 January 2022.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint and the evidence it had reviewed. Ahead of a call it had scheduled with the resident for 12 January 2022, it advised it could offer the resident £230.38 compensation, by way of a refund of the rent and service charge for the two week period he was decanted for.
On 12 January 2022 the resident and landlord spoke again and the landlord sought to confirm it had correctly understood his complaint. It apologised for the anxiety the resident had reported its previous email had caused him.
On 19 January 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident to go over the complaint details, and it sent him a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement letter the next day. It recorded that it had outlined its “final offer at stage 2” as “£500 compensation, a 75% reduction of his management fee for 2020/21 and a 100% reduction on the management fee as well as a refund (rent and service charges) on the two weeks he was decanted”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2022, and set out the three main questions that he wanted answered in his complaint response:
1. He wanted to know why it had not acted when he first reported the leak, describing the subsequent three months as “wasted”;
2. He wanted to know what the “state” of the building insurance was, after the landlord’s contractor had gone up and “tampered” with the roof;
3. He asked why it took a year for his landlord to repair the damage caused to his flat.
On 27 January 2022 the landlord notified the resident that a key member of staff that it needed to be involved in the investigation of the complaint was unexpectedly off work for the rest of the week. It explained it would postpone a call it had scheduled with the resident to the following week, and said it understood that this news would be disappointing to the resident.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 2 February 2022 regarding the outcome of his stage 2 complaint, and promised to send a letter as soon as possible. It asked him to confirm whether he had any outstanding repairs.
On 4 February 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, in which it:
1. Summarised the history of the complaint, and explained that at the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, it had a one-stage complaint process. It explained it now had a new complaint procedure, and had agreed to escalate his complaint to stage 2 “in the spirit of local resolution”;
2. Confirmed the resident currently owed £10,624.15 in arrears, after withholding his payments of rent and service charge due to the dispute;
3. Confirmed there were now no outstanding repairs;
4. Apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the issues. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration, including the impact of having to deal with several different members of staff, and said the complaint handler would now remain the resident’s point of contact regarding the matter. It acknowledged the difficult time the resident and his partner had had, especially within the context of the resident’s partner’s illness and treatment;
5. Advised it had recently made an additional offer of £500 compensation to the resident, and acknowledged the resident had not been satisfied with this amount. It explained it had also offered to write off the rent and service charge for the two weeks the resident had been decanted (totalling £230.38), and that the resident told it he wanted to “review” this;
6. Proposed a new offer of compensation, totalling £1,140.35:
  1. £230.38 to offset the rent and service charge for the two weeks the resident was decanted for;
  2. £409.97 reduction in the management fee (amounting to all of that year’s fee, and 75% of the previous year’s);
  3. £500 compensation, in recognition of the “high impact” the events had had on the resident and his partner.
7. Advised its complaints process had been concluded and signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord noted on 10 February 2022 that it had advised the resident that as “the matter [was] closed”, it would seek to recover the arrears he owed. On the same day, the resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation, and explained that he felt it did not adequately reflect the impact on him.
In a summary of its actions following the completion of its internal complaints process, the landlord has advised that it has added flags to each property with a managing agent, so that this is highlighted at the point a repair is first reported by residents. It said it had also given training to its call centre staff to ensure they would know what to do if there is a managing agent in place.
The landlord said it has introduced new management roles within its repairs team, and had identified the lead staff in each geographical area so that its staff would know who to contact if they needed support with an issue.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the roof leak

The landlord has supplied several different dates to us, which made it difficult to confirm the exact days on which the events referred to in this report had occurred. The difference was usually a matter of one day, and we have taken the view that we have been able to gather a sufficient understanding to allow us to assess the landlord’s handling of the issues raised by the resident. The landlord should, however, take note and review the way in which it records information (especially around repairs), so as to prevent ambiguity in future cases.
We have seen several internal discussions between members of the landlord’s staff that demonstrate it realised it had failed to act appropriately in response to the resident’s initial report of a leak in June 2020, which led to a delay of over three months before the problem was fixed by the managing agent’s contractor.
The landlord further acknowledged to us that it should have raised the repairs prior to the ceiling collapse as emergencies, but gave them a routine categorisation instead, meaning the water ingress was allowed to continue to cause damage over several weeks each time.
The landlord also acknowledged to us and the resident that it had failed to act appropriately when it sent its own contractors, when the building’s managing agent was responsible for the roof maintenance. It appears that it was prompted to check the responsibility for repairs only after its roofing contractor asked it to check whether the roof was still under warranty, given the age of the building, in October 2020.
These represented multiple missed opportunities to address the underlying problem before the damage became so severe that the resident’s property became uninhabitable and the ceiling collapsed. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated by the lack of progress over the summer of 2020, and that it was particularly distressing to have to move within the context of the risks the COVID-19 pandemic presented to his partner.
It is welcomed that the landlord has now taken steps to help its staff identify properties with managing agents, and given them training so they know what to do in future cases. However, it is important that it also recognises that it failed the resident.
The resident raised an understandable point, that the work undertaken by the landlord’s contractor may have affected the building warranty. The landlord should now confirm to the resident whether this is the case or not.
The landlord has explained that it would not normally pay for the replacement of flooring, because it would expect this to be covered by the resident’s contents insurance. However, it had taken into account the resident and his partner’s circumstances and decided that it would exercise its discretion to pay for the new flooring and for it to be fitted. The records supplied to us show that this cost over £2000.
At stage 2 of its complaints process, the landlord offered the resident a total of £1,140.35 compensation. We recognise the resident’s views about the amount of compensation he considers appropriate, and we note the distress and significant inconvenience that has been caused to his household. With reference to the resident’s monthly charges of £555.51 (including £361.74 in rent), and the landlord’s agreement to replace the damaged flooring in the resident’s flat, we consider the landlord’s offer to be a proportionate figure given the serious impact on the resident and his partner at a difficult time in their lives, and a reasonable level of redress for its failures regarding the repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint

The resident has explained to this Service that he felt like it was “a battle” to get any decisions or progress from the landlord. The history of his complaint (as set out in the summary of events above) supports this assertion. Again, we acknowledge that the resident was already dealing with acutely stressful circumstances, and that the landlord’s lack of response to his reasonable questions would have compounded his distress.
The landlord logged the resident’s stage 1 response on 16 October 2020, and issued its response on 6 November 2020. This was not within its target timeframe of 10 working days (totalling 15 instead).
As set out in the background of this report, the landlord had a one-stage complaint process at that time, and the resident’s complaint was closed.
The landlord’s initial offer of £100 compensation was not reasonably proportionate to the effects on the resident, and it is understandable that he did not consider it to satisfactorily resolve the matters he had raised in his complaint.
As the resident continued to pursue the landlord for payment for the damage that had been caused, including to his laminate flooring, the landlord’s responses significantly slowed.
The landlord had decided to see if the damage would be covered by the buildings insurance, and there is evidence that the landlord chased the managing agent about this in November 2020, and again in January and February 2021. In February 2021 the managing agent indicated that the resident’s claim appeared to fall outside its building insurance process, and the landlord asked to see the policy. However, it did not follow up on this until 24 June 2021 after it had sought to recover the payments the resident had started withholding in protest.
This represented a delay of over seven months, before the landlord agreed it would exercise discretion and pay for the resident’s flooring replacement.
The resident contacted the landlord and set out his dissatisfaction on 1 September 2021. It should have recognised at this point that it needed to address his concerns through its complaints process, whether this be a fresh complaint at stage 1 or an escalation to stage 2. The resident had to chase over the next four months, until it finally decided to initiate its complaints process again. This was unreasonable on the part of the landlord, and understandably caused the resident upset.
It would be appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident for his time and trouble in chasing a resolution to his complaint, and an order is made to that effect below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident, which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint regarding its response to the leak to the building roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to act quickly enough in response to the leak, and it did not contact the managing agent when it should have. This led to an unnecessary level of impact on the resident.
The landlord has made offers of redress at stage 2 of its complaints process. We understand that this offer did not meet the resident’s expectations, and that he sought a higher amount of compensation. However, taken altogether, the landlord’s offer was, in our opinion, an offer of reasonable redress.
The resident had to spend far too long chasing responses from the landlord regarding his flooring, and for an escalation of his wider complaint. This compounded his distress and the landlord should compensate him for this.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within three weeks of this report’s date, the landlord should contact the resident to apologise for the length of time he had to chase it for an appropriate response to his complaint, and especially for the many months in which he had to wait with no response from it. It should provide us with a copy once complete.
Within five weeks of this report’s date, the landlord should directly pay the resident the below compensation, and confirm to us when this is done:
1. The £1,140.35 it previously offered;
2. £500 for his time and trouble in chasing a response from it.
The landlord should seek to confirm the status of the building insurance. It should provide confirmation of the outcome of its enquiries to the resident no later than five weeks after the date of this report, and confirm to us when this is complete.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews the way it records dates for events, especially repairs, so as to prevent ambiguity in future.