Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202208675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208675

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

12 February 2024

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks during and after roofing works.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of the property, a studio flat on the top floor of a converted terrace house, from 2018. The landlord is a local authority which owns and manages the building and the resident’s flat.
The landlord has recorded that the resident has a mental health condition and knows this condition is schizoaffective disorder. The resident told us the condition causes him to behave impulsively and emotionally especially in situations which he finds stressful. He told us that he takes medication and is generally able to manage his condition but has needed treatment in hospital at various times. He explained that he can struggle to cope when his life is disrupted and has periods where he cannot face daily life and needs peace and quiet to recover.
The landlord has obligations to repair and maintain the property under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement. The landlord explains its responsibilities in its tenancy handbook which says it will keep the property “watertight” and in “good” repair. The handbook confirms the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including the roof.
The tenancy handbook and the landlord’s repairs policy set out the response timescales for different categories of repairs:
1. Critical repairs where there is a serious safety hazard, risk of further damage or potential to cause injury. The landlord will respond within 4 hours.
2. Emergency repairs such as burst pipes, loss of power or water, or insecure doors or windows. It will respond within 24 hours.
3. Urgent repairs such as minor leaks that can be contained. It will respond within 5 days.
4. Routine repairs such as plastering. It will respond within 20 days.
5. Planned repairs including roof repairs that need scaffolding and rectifying major defects. It will respond within 90 days.
The handbook gives some general advice about asbestos. It says that, if in good condition and left undisturbed, building materials containing asbestos are not a risk to health. However, if they become damaged, fibres may be released and could cause health problems if exposure is prolonged.
The landlord has obligations under the Care Act 2014 to safeguard vulnerable adults. This means that the landlord should be aware of what factors, including mental health, may cause an adult to be vulnerable. It should consider what risks of harm or neglect the vulnerable adult faces and what it can do to protect them.
It also has obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments to remove, or reduce as far as possible, disadvantages faced by people with a protected characteristic. Protected characteristics are specified in the Act and include disability. Disability is defined as conditions that have a substantial, and long term, negative impact on a person’s ability to do normal daily activities. This means the landlord should consider reasonable adjustments to its services for residents with mental health conditions which may qualify as being a disability.
The landlord’s safeguarding policy says that safeguarding is “everyone’s” responsibility. It sets out how the landlord will identify adults who may be at risk and says the landlord will ensure that staff are trained to recognise signs of harm. It says its staff will follow its procedures in reporting and managing safeguarding concerns.
The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord has a separate compensation policy that says the landlord may offer compensation where there has been a service failure. For example, it may pay compensation calculated as a percentage of the rent charge where a service failure means parts of resident’s home cannot be used. It says it will not pay compensation where the loss is due to planned works unless the loss is for longer than initially agreed.
The compensation policy excludes claims for damage to possessions. It advises residents to take out their own home contents insurance and says that any claims against it should be made to its insurance team.
In January 2024 the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights. It is available on our website. The events in this case happened before we published this report. However, we have referred to our spotlight report where it is relevant to our findings and when considering our orders and recommendations.

Summary of events

We understand that the landlord notified residents in the area that it intended to carry out planned repairs to the roofs and external decorations in 2020. The work was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic and rescheduled to take place in 2022.
On 25 January 2022 the landlord’s contractor visited the resident before the planned works started on the street where he lived. The contractor filled in a “resident information” form and recorded that the resident had no disabilities and that no mental health conditions had been disclosed.
Sometime in March 2022 the contractor sent out a newsletter which said that scaffolding was being installed on the resident’s street. It said the roof repairs would start on 5 April 2022 and take up to 8 weeks. The evidence suggests that the contractor visited the resident but we have seen no records to confirm the purpose of the visit or what was discussed.
On 4 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the residents of the street confirming that the work needed to the roof was more extensive than initially anticipated. It said the roof would be replaced and the scaffolding would be in place for longer than planned. It advised residents to contact the contractor if they had questions.
The resident called the landlord’s repair line on 4 May 2022 to report a leak through the roof into his flat. The landlord sent a plumber and an electrician to make the property safe.
The resident reported the leak and the damage it had caused to the contractor the following day. The contractor completed an incident report form on 9 May 2022 and noted it had tried to visit the resident on 6 May 2022 but he had not been at home. The contractor had left a card asking him to make contact. The landlord’s records suggest the contractor visited again on 12 May 2022 but did not gain access.
On 16 May 2022 the resident went to the landlord’s neighbourhood office. He said that water was leaking through the roof when it rained and the leak was getting worse. He said that the contractor had told him there was nothing it could do as the roof tiles had been removed. The resident was upset as his kitchen had only recently been replaced after being damaged by a previous leak before the planned work had started. He wanted the landlord to stop the leak.
The landlord’s records suggest that the contractor visited on 17, 19 and 24 May 2022 but could not gain access.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord emailed the contractor’s resident liaison officer. It told the officer not to communicate further with the resident and said it would write to him about his “unacceptable” behaviour. The landlord’s records show the resident was advised to contact the landlord instead of the contractor from then on.
The resident visited the landlord’s town hall office on 30 May 2022 saying there was still water coming in through his roof when it rained. He said his phone was broken so he had not been able to make or return calls. The landlord arranged for its own repairs team to attend that day but its records suggest it did not gain access. The resident’s councillor also contacted the landlord on 30 May 2022.
The landlord’s records suggest its surveyor visited on 31 May 2022. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what the outcome of the visit was.
The landlord’s records suggest that the contractor reported an incident of the resident using “abusive” language on 1 June 2022. We have not seen any evidence of the incident reported or of any action by the landlord in response to the contractor’s report.
On 6 June 2022 the resident had an appointment with his GP. The GP gave him a letter of support which confirmed his mental health condition and the impact the leak was having on him. It said the resident was unable to sleep, had not been eating and been unable to attend to his personal hygiene. It said the GP was concerned that the stress was worsening his mental health and asked for urgent action to be taken to resolve the leak. The resident passed the letter onto the landlord.
The landlord’s records suggest that it visited on 7 June 2022. We have seen no evidence that detailed what was discussed or the outcome of the visit.
Later on, 7 June 2022 the resident the resident made a formal complaint. He said:
1. He was complaining about his treatment by the landlord and its contractors.
2. On 2 May 2022 he had a “major” leak in the kitchen caused by rainwater coming through the roof. He had reported it and an emergency plumber had attended but could not do anything because it was being caused by rain. An electrician also came to make safe.
3. Over the next few weeks, he had been sent from “pillar to post”. Every time the rain came through the roof, he reported it at the landlord’s office and told the contractor. Neither had taken responsibility and had blamed each other. He had been to the landlord’s office at least 10 times in 3 weeks.
4. The stress had caused “great strain” to his physical and mental health.
5. The leak had damaged a newly fitted kitchen and recently decorated flat. His freezer was damaged and he had to throw the contents away. He was worried about damp and other issues.
6. He had found out that the roof was removed due to asbestos. He was worried that the water that came into his flat had been contaminated.
7. He had reached a point where he could not sleep in the flat and stayed with friends and family. He had “begged” to be rehoused temporarily.
8. He had schizoaffective disorder and his GP had written to the landlord.
9. An officer had visited him and assured him it would be resolved soon. He did not have confidence in this as he had previously had to take legal action to get repairs done.
10. The leak seemed to have diminished but there was still a drip into the kitchen.
The landlord tried to call the resident to discuss his complaint on 10 June 2022. Its records suggest it left him a voicemail message.
On 12 June 2022 the resident sent the landlord a video showing damage to his ceiling. He said it had been caused by nails during the roofing work. The resident called the landlord on 20 June 2022 about the damage to his flat, the timescale for repairs and compensation.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 22 June 2022. It said:
1. It had received his complaint on 7 June 2022 and spoken to him the same day.
2. It understood his complaint was about rainwater leaking into his home damaging his new kitchen, freezer and decorations. It was also about his concerns about asbestos and communication issues.
3. The roof tiles had been removed and a temporary cover was in place which the contractor checked every day. There had been high winds and heavy rain which had breached the temporary cover. The contractor had attended when he had reported leaks. It had asked its contractor to keep evidence of its daily checks from now on.
4. His home was a priority for completing the roof repairs and ensuring there was no further damage from leaks. It expected his roof to be tiled within 4 weeks and would keep him updated on progress.
5. It had inspected the damage in his flat on 7 June 2022 and would make sure it was repaired and decorated once the roof was tiled.
6. It was reviewing his claim for the damaged freezer and hoped to resolve the issue shortly.
7. The asbestos found in the old roof tiles was low risk and unlikely to release fibres when disturbed. The tiles had been removed by a licensed contractor and there was no further risk.
8. It gave contact details for the contractor and its own project staff. He should contact the contractor in the first instance if there were any further issues.
9. It was partially upholding his complaint as it was still in the process of replacing the roof. It would conclude his complaint by 21 July 2022 once the work was complete. This included the redecoration of his flat and his claim for his damaged freezer.
The resident visited the landlord’s office on 27 June 2022. The landlord’s records say he was frustrated with the damage caused by the contractor, and that the contractor had inspected it and would repair it. The resident wanted to escalate his complaint as he was not happy with the landlord’s stage 1 response.
On 29 June 2022 the resident sent the landlord photographs of the damage and asked to escalate his complaint. He said:
1. The landlord had not addressed his complaint properly and had not spoken to him about it.
2. If it had investigated properly, it would know he had been told not to speak to the contractor. It should not have told him to do so in its response.
3. It had only taken notice of the problems because his GP and councillor had written to it.
4. He wanted compensation for the 7 weeks that he had not been able to use his kitchen and for the distress caused to him.
5. There was still water coming in through the roof and the contractors had caused more damage by nailing through his ceiling.
The landlord acknowledged his escalation on 30 June 2022. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord saying he was not satisfied with the contractor’s attempts to fix the roof. He said the contractor was using the “wrong” nails on the roof. They were too long and had protruded through his ceiling. Water was still leaking into his flat when it rained. The landlord’s project manager arranged to visit him.
The landlord visited the resident on 4 July 2022 and noted there was water staining and “screw marks” on the ceilings. The officer later described the repairs needed to the resident’s flat as “minor” and that his flat was “dry and more than habitable”. The landlord’s records say the officer had told the resident that the roof tiling was almost complete and there was little risk of further leaks. The landlord would consider decanting the resident when work started on the dormer windows. The resident later emailed asking the landlord to confirm when work would start and how long it would take. The landlord said it would let him know after it had spoken to the contractor.
Also on 4 July 2022, the resident emailed saying he wanted to add an issue to his complaint. He said he had been told he would be offered temporary accommodation until the roofing work finished. He had now been told that he did not need to move out yet but could have temporary accommodation when disruptive work started. The resident said he felt it was another broken promise and it had left him uncertain about when, or if, he would be moved. He said the landlord’s treatment of him was bordering on breaching his human rights. The landlord confirmed it had added the issue to his complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 July 2022 saying the work would start on his dormer windows on 11 July 2022 and would be noisy. It asked if the resident would like it to arrange temporary accommodation. The landlord later confirmed it had booked him into a hotel for 7 nights from 11 July 2022.
On 12 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. He said he had been decanted but had returned home that morning to collect some belongings. He said that the contractor had drilled through walls causing further damage. He said the situation was causing him anxiety and making his mental health worse. He was worried about staying in the hotel in case further damage occurred whilst his flat was unattended. The landlord assured the resident that all the damage would be resolved.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 26 July 2022. It said:
1. It acknowledged there had been several roof leaks over recent years. This must have been distressing for the resident.
2. Some repairs had been done in September 2021 but further work was needed. The roof replacement was delayed when it found asbestos that had to be removed by a licensed contractor. It would complete the roof replacement as soon as it could.
3. It had spoken to him before sending out its stage 1 response.
4. The resident had been told not to contact the contractor after repeated incidents where he had been reported to have behaved inappropriately towards its staff.
5. It recognised that the ongoing leaks had caused anxiety and distress and affected his ability to manage his mental health condition.
6. Its project manager would be his point of contact for the remainder of the work.
7. It had arranged temporary accommodation for him once it knew the timescale for the work to the dormer windows.
8. It expected to finish the work to the dormer windows and repairing the damage to his flat within 3 weeks. It would check the work to make sure it had been done properly.
9. It upheld his complaint and offered £350 compensation.
The resident responded on 27 July 2022 asking if the compensation included the replacement of his freezer. The landlord replied on 1 August 2022 saying that damage to his belongings would not be covered by its compensation policy. It told the resident he should claim from his own insurance or its insurance and attached a claim form. The resident replied saying he would make a claim and later said that he “reluctantly” accepted the compensation offer.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The landlord’s records suggest that the roofing work was paused from 3 August 2022 due to a “health and safety issue”. We understand the issue was excessively hot weather and that work started again on 12 September 2022. The landlord wrote to residents of the street soon afterwards saying it was aware of some leaks into the top floor flats during rain. It asked residents to contact the contractor if their flat had been affected.
On 3 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and contractor because the roof replacement was not finished, the scaffolding was still in place and the damage to his flat had not been repaired. He was continuing to be affected by the noise of the roof work and said he had damp and mould due to the ongoing leak.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 5 October 2022 saying he was not satisfied with the landlord’s handling of the roof replacement and his complaint.
The evidence suggests that the roof replacement was finished around 15 November 2022 and the scaffolding removed by the end of November 2022.
However, the resident continued to have leaks during heavy rainfall until at least March 2023. The landlord carried out further repairs and a flood test done on 22 May 2023 showed the leak had been resolved. On 30 June 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the leak had been resolved and said its contractor would now arrange to decorate the affected areas in his flat. The decorating was finished in July 2023.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.

Handling of reports of leaks during and after roofing work

The landlord knew of the resident’s mental health condition before the work to the roof started. This was relevant information that should have been available to the staff involved in planning the repairs to enable them to consider how they might affect the resident and whether reasonable adjustments were needed. The landlord should also have asked the resident’s consent to share the information with the contractor.
Although the contractor visited before the start of the work, it did not pick up on the resident’s mental health condition. This meant that neither the landlord or the contractor considered adjusting their plans for doing the work and missed the opportunity to minimise the impact on the resident.
For example, ladders were fixed to the scaffolding in front of the resident’s windows. This meant workers were passing his windows multiple times a day even if they were not working on his part of the roof. The resident told us he felt he had no privacy and had to keep his curtains shut as well as being disturbed by the noise made by the workers as they passed. It may have been an easy adjustment for the ladders to have been put in a different place when the scaffolding was erected.
The landlord initially anticipated that the roof repairs would take 8 weeks. However, from April 2022 the landlord was telling residents that the roof needed replacement. It also knew that the roof tiles contained asbestos. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen whether its decision to replace the roof was caused by the detection of asbestos, or the roof being in worse condition than it had thought, or both factors.
The landlord’s communications to residents did not mention the asbestos it had found. We understand that the landlord may have wanted to avoid worrying residents, but it should have explained it had found asbestos, what the risks were, and how it was going to resolve the issue. The landlord’s lack of transparency caused anxiety and distress to the resident when he later found out about the asbestos.
The resident first reported a leak on 4 May 2022, and it was appropriate that the landlord sent operatives to make sure the property was safe. The evidence suggests that the contractor made several attempts to visit to assess the leak and the damage caused. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen whether the contractor had been speaking to the resident to arrange appointments in advance of its visits.
The contractor would not have needed access to the resident’s flat to be able to adjust the temporary roof covering. However, we have not seen any evidence of work it may have done to prevent the leak from recurring. Nor have we seen evidence that either the contractor or the landlord had gained access to assess the leak and damage caused by the time the landlord told the contractor’s liaison officer not to communicate with the resident on 27 May 2022.
The landlord’s decision to tell the resident not to contact the contractor directly created a further barrier to the resident being able to get the leak and damage resolved. Although it was reasonable that the landlord was concerned with protecting the contractor’s staff, it should have considered what was causing the resident’s behaviour and what it could do to improve the situation. It should also have made sure that its decision did not disadvantage the resident in being able to get problems arising from the works resolved appropriately.
The resident told us that he was experiencing a mental health crisis by the time of his visit to the town hall on 30 May 2022. He recalled being in significant distress, crying and asking to be rehoused as he could not cope with living in his flat any longer. He said that he was asked to leave because the office was due to close. The landlord did not provide any detailed records of the resident’s visit but said it had arranged an out of hours repair visit but had not gained access.
The lack of detail provided by the landlord could suggest inadequate record keeping and could mean that the details of the resident’s distress were not passed on to the staff dealing with the roof replacement. Regardless, this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to understand and respond appropriately to the resident’s distress.
The GP’s letter should have caused the landlord to urgently consider how it could safeguard the resident. The resident told us that he had taken the letter into the landlord’s office on either 6 or 7 June 2022. The landlord’s evidence contains no record of when it received the letter, and the landlord’s correspondence contains no reference to it until 13 July 2022 when the complaint handler sent a copy to the project manager.
Although the landlord’s records show it visited the resident on 7 June 2022, we have seen no evidence that the visiting officer knew about the GP’s letter or discussed harm risks with him. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered any action it could take to safeguard the resident.
The evidence suggests that from 7 June 2022 onwards the landlord was considering the resident’s mental health condition to a limited degree. There were references in internal emails to this being a “sensitive case” and needing “more care.” However, there is no evidence that the landlord adequately understood how the resident was being affected, or how important it was to his wellbeing to have his flat repaired and to be free from the intrusion of the work going on around his home.
This meant the landlord did not respond adequately when further damage was caused on 30 June 2022. Although the landlord considered decanting the resident, it decided it was not necessary to do so at that point. It was reasonable that the landlord considered whether the flat was habitable, given its repairing obligations. However, it should have also considered the risks of remaining in the flat on the resident’s wellbeing.
The landlord later decided to move the resident out during work which it expected to be noisy and disruptive. It should have consulted with him over the decant options available and taken his views into account. This would have given the resident the sense that he had some control over what was happening. The landlord should also have managed the move better to make sure the resident could take the belongings he would need with him.
The resident discovered further damage had occurred when he returned to collect belongings during his hotel stay. This further undermined his confidence in the landlord’s care for his home and its assurances that it would supervise the work.
The roofing work took much longer than 8 weeks that the landlord and resident originally anticipated. The Ombudsman understands that unforeseen events, including weather conditions, can delay external work programmes and that sometimes there is little a landlord can do about this. However, in this case, the delays meant the resident’s ability to enjoy living in his home was significantly affected for the 8 month duration of the planned repair work. It took the landlord a further 5 months to finally resolve the leak which continued after the roof replacement and another 2 months to finish the decorating. Overall, the resident was affected by the leaks from the roof for 14 months.
The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances, such as health conditions or vulnerabilities, mean they are more affected by a landlord’s actions or inactions than others. The landlord in this case failed to adequately understand the resident’s mental health condition throughout its handling of the planned roofing work and the leaks he reported. This meant it did not adequately consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Care Act 2014 and missed opportunities to minimise the impact on the resident and reduce the risks of harm. The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration.
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. In considering this the Ombudsman considers 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 this case the landlord offered £350 compensation through its complaint process. We do not consider this to be sufficient redress considering the 6 month delay in it completing the planned roofing work and that the resident continued to be affected by leaks for a further 5 months after the roof had been replaced.
We have made orders below for the landlord to apologise and pay an additional £1,150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount considers the resident’s vulnerability and the period he was affected by the leaks and damage to his home.
In our attitudes, respect, and rights spotlight report, we have explained how vulnerability is a dynamic state that can be increased or reduced by the way an organisation treats a person and how their needs are considered. The landlord should read our report and consider how it can improve its approach.

Handling of the complaint

The resident made a formal complaint on 7 June 2022. He referred to his mental health condition, the letter written by his GP and the strain he was under. This should have caused the landlord to consider his wellbeing. Although the landlord tried to call the resident about his complaint, we have seen no evidence that it considered any safeguarding concerns.
The landlord’s stage 1 response explained that the temporary roof covering had been affected by high winds and heavy rain, but it did not explain why the work was delayed. The response set out when it expected the roof work to finish and said the temporary covering would be checked every day in the meantime. It also sought to reassure the resident that it would repair the damage to his flat.
However, its advice about who the resident should contact if there were further problems was inappropriate. It suggests that the landlord’s investigation was inadequate as a thorough investigation should have revealed that the resident was previously told not to contact the contractor directly. Nor did its response address the resident’s points about how the leaks had affected his health and wellbeing.
The landlord’s reference to partially upholding the complaint due to the roof work not being finished was unnecessary and confusing. The status of the roof work at the time of the response should have had no bearing on the landlord’s decision to uphold the complaint or not. Its decision on whether to uphold the complaint should have been made on the failings it had identified in its investigation. The landlord’s reference to concluding his complaint by 21 July 2022 was similarly unnecessary and confusing.
The resident’s visit to the landlord’s office on 27 June 2022 should have caused the landlord to escalate his complaint. It did not do so until 2 days later when the resident used its online service to escalate his complaint.
It was reasonable that the landlord added the issues raised by the resident on 4 July 2022 to his complaint. Its stage 2 response should have addressed all the points that the resident had raised in his escalation and the further issues he raised on 4 July 2022. The landlord’s review at stage 2 should also have considered whether it had adequately responded to the issues raised in the complaint in its stage 1 response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did acknowledge that there had been leaks before the planned roof works had started and that the roof replacement was delayed by the discovery of asbestos. It also explained why the resident had previously been told not to contact the contractor directly and confirmed his future point of contact.
However, it did not explain why it had told the resident to contact the contractor with further issues in its stage 1 response. As such, the landlord did not adequately respond to that part of the resident’s escalation.
Similarly, the landlord said it recognised that the ongoing leaks had caused the resident anxiety and distress. However, it said that temporary accommodation had not been necessary until the noisy work on the dormer window started. This did not adequately address the resident’s point that he had been offered temporary accommodation earlier, but the landlord had delayed it until the work started on the dormer window. It also suggests that the landlord had again not adequately understood the impact the issues were having on the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address the resident’s point about it potentially breaching his human rights.
The resident had asked for compensation for the damage to his freezer when he complained on 7 June 2022. Under its compensation policy, the landlord should have advised the resident to claim from his own insurance or make a claim from its insurance. However, its stage 1 response said it was considering his claim and gave the resident the expectation that he would receive its decision later.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address his request for compensation for his freezer. It did not tell him that he needed to make a claim to its insurance team until 1 August 2022 which was 3 months after the damage occurred and 2 months after he had asked for compensation.
It is not clear from the evidence we have seen whether there is a time limit for residents submitting a claim under the landlord’s policy. However, the landlord’s failure to give the correct advice at the right time gave the resident the expectation that it would deal with his request as part of his complaint. The landlord should make sure that it gives accurate and timely advice to residents in future.
The landlord’s failings in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages amount to maladministration. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £350 compensation. This amount includes £150 for the resident missing the opportunity to claim for the damage to his freezer.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

It took the landlord over 12 months to resolve the leak through the roof into the resident’s flat and a further 2 months to finish decorating the affected ceilings. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s mental health condition when it planned the roofing work and throughout its handling of the leaks he reported. This meant it missed opportunities to minimise the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
The landlord did not adequately address the points the resident made in his complaint and escalation. It did not appropriately respond to his request for compensation for his damaged freezer which meant the resident missed out on the opportunity to claim from its insurance.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. A senior officer must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in the report and acknowledge the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its letter.
2. Pay the resident £1,500 compensation. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears and is comprised of:
  1. £1,150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks.
  2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his complaint.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord read our attitudes, respect and rights spotlight report and consider how it can strengthen its approach to recognising when residents are vulnerable and ensure it considers where reasonable adjustments can be made.