Ongo Homes Limited (202004563)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004563

Ongo Homes Limited

23 December 2020

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 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 concerns the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of leaks from the building’s roof.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat on the top floor of the building.
On the morning of 31 May 2019 the landlord’s call logs show that the resident called and informed it that the electrics in the property had been tripped due to water ingress. The logs also note that the landlord informed him that an operative would be visiting that afternoon.
Notes from the repair logs state that the operative raised a work order for a camera examination of the pipework and recommended further testing to the roof to locate potential leaks. The notes say that the operative informed the resident that he had undertaken some remedial work to the roof, but that that this would not be able to be completed until the source of the leak was identified and repaired.
The repair logs then note that a liquid coating was applied to the roof above the resident’s property on 5 June 2019 and after being informed by the resident on 10 June that the leak had reoccurred, a second coat was applied on 11 June.
On 25 June 2019 the resident called the landlord and enquired if the leak had been repaired. The resident called again on 26 and 29 July and stated his unhappiness that he had not received an update. The call logs also noted the resident’s concern that as rain was forecast for the upcoming days, the leak would reoccur.
The landlord call logs state that it attempted to call the resident “on several occasions” between 2 and 8 August 2019. It was unable to reach him but did leave a message.
The repair logs show that the outstanding remedial work was completed on 9 August 2019.
On 13 December 2019 the landlord’s records show that the resident called to inform it that the roof leak had reoccurred and that he wanted the landlord to visit after the Christmas holidays.
The call logs show that the resident called again for an update on 31 January 2020, and on 24 March the landlord commissioned a survey of the roof in order to decide what work was required to resolve the issue.
On 24 and 25 June 2020 the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint into the matter. The call logs note that the resident requested to receive a stage 2 complaint response in order to allow him to take his case to this Service.
The landlord visited the building on 30 June 2020 to inspect the roof, and visited again on 7 July to undertake work to the roof and to speak to the resident. The landlord’s notes of the visit say that two sections of insulation were cut out to prevent water being retained on the roof. It then informed the resident what work had been carried out, and explained that this was a short-term solution with no guarantee of success, but that it was looking for a long–term solution to the problem.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 8 July 2020. The landlord explained that it believed that the remedial action it took during its visit the previous day would alleviate the situation, and that its contractors would visit the building weekly to monitor the roof.
The landlord then informed the resident it “will be working closely with our contractors and also roofing specialists in order to determine a way forward that will give us a robust long term solution to this problem”.
The landlord concluded the response by confirming that it had, at the request of the resident, escalated the complaint to stage two and an investigation would be undertaken by a head of service. It also apologised to the resident and his family for inconvenience and stress that this matter had caused.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 17 July 2019. It first informed the resident that it considered the repairs that it had undertaken to the roof were “all done in good faith and with advice taken from specialist roofing companies at various stages, to give us the best insight into concluding the matter successfully”. It then acknowledged that these repairs had not resolved the problem and apologised to the resident.
The landlord described the work it had undertaken and the work it planned to undertake in order to resolve the issue. It informed the resident that it:
1. Had arranged a visit by a roofing contractor to investigate the condition of the roof.
2. Took remedial action to divert water into the rainwater gullies.
3. Instructed its roofing contractor to visit the building once a week to check on the status of the roof.
4. Contracted a roofing specialist, who visited the property on 16 July 2020 to look into replacing the roof.
5. Had inspected the damage caused by water ingress in the resident’s property. It had informed him that it would not undertake any work in the property until the matter had been resolved, but would then carry out full decoration to the affected areas.
6. Had been in contact with other residents on the top floor of the building and inspected their properties for any signs of water ingress.
7. A staff meeting was held on 16 July 2020 to discuss the issue and what lessons could be learned to deal with this kind of problem in a more effective and efficient manner.
The landlord then informed the resident that it was currently going through the approval process to replace the roof of the building and that it would continue to monitor the condition of the current roof.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the upset that it had caused and acknowledged the frustration he had with landlord’s ongoing efforts to resolve the issue. It then confirmed that he had now exhausted its internal complaint process.

Assessment and findings

Section 2.12 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to “the roof, external walls and doors”.
Appendix 1 of the landlord’s maintenance policy describes its repair priorities and states that reports of total loss of electricity, unsafe electrical fittings and leaking water where the leak cannot be control by isolation should be attended to on the same day they are reported.
When the resident reported the issue of water ingress causing the electrics to trip in May 2019, a work order was raised for an operative to attend on the same day. The source of the ingress was identified as a leak from the building’s roof. Remedial work was undertaken, and further investigation work was recommended to find a permanent solution.
Following two liquid coatings applied to the roof in June 2019, the issue appeared to have be resolved and decoration to the affected areas in the property was completed. However, in December 2019 the resident informed the landlord that water ingress into the property had restarted.
The landlord then worked with its operatives and contractors in order to seek a long-term solution to the problem. Further remedial work was undertaken to provide a short-term solution and the resident was informed that the landlord would not redecorate the property until it had found a permanent solution. In July 2020 it took the decision to replace the entire roof of the building and started the process to have approval for this granted.
Overall, the landlord has responded appropriately to the issue. It responded in line with its policies and procedures by attending the property on the day when water leaks had been reported by the resident. It took advice from specialist roofing contractors in what work to undertake to resolve the matter. It raised work orders to complete remedial work to reduce and disperse water from the roof while it pursed a long-term solution. The work it had taken and the work it planned was described to the resident during the complaint process.
While the frustration of the resident is wholly understandable, in some circumstances it can be difficult to locate the source of a leak into a property. In this case, the contractor’s work in June 2019 seemed to have resolved the matter. However, in the following winter when the weather worsened it became clear that the leak remained.
When the leak reoccurred, the landlord worked with its existing contractors and a roofing specialist in order to find a solution. The repair logs show that during its visits, the landlord would also visit the resident to provide updates.
The landlord remained in contact with the resident and kept him informed of the work it was undertaking to the roof. It responded to his reports of leaks and undertook remedial work to lessen the impact while a solution was found. Ultimately it made the decision to replace the entire roof. There is no indication that the leaks were specifically the result of service failure or inaction by the landlord, and its responses were relevant and reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord followed its policies and procedures in responding to the residents reports of water ingress.
The landlord worked with its contractors and roofing specialists in order to locate the source of the leak and resolve the issue.
The landlord kept the resident updated during this process.