Sanctuary Housing Association (202224898)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224898

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to the resident’s leaking roof;
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and occupies a 3-bedroom end of terrace house. The resident has multiple sclerosis (MS) and experiences poor mental health. Both the resident and his partner and joint tenant are referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
In January 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that his property had a leaking roof, which was causing damp, mould, and staining to the ceiling of a bedroom. Following a visit in that month by the landlord’s surveyor, a schedule of works to replace felt, soffits, fascias and tiles was passed after a roof inspection in February 2020 to its major revenue team for approval. The surveyor had noted that the roof soffits might contain asbestos, which was confirmed to be the case in an asbestos report received in March 2020.
In March 2020, the first nationwide COVID-19 pandemic lockdown began and was followed by various local restrictions and 2 further nationwide lockdowns. The resident chased the landlord several times for updates about the proposed roof works, which it had approved and sought quotations for, between September 2020 and July 2021, as this was continuing to leak, and made a formal complaint about issues including this on 3 September 2021, in which he stated that water was coming into the property and damaging the soffits. The landlord did not log this complaint and the resident complained again on 6 January 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 April 2022. It said it was not appropriate under its policy to investigate a complaint relating to an issue more than 6 months old, so it would not do so before 13 July 2021. It addressed several other repairs notified to it by the resident and identified failings in its service in relation to these. It apologised and offered £300 compensation.
Dissatisfied with this response, the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 5 April 2022, explaining that the landlord had said that its policy permitted it consider issues older than 6 months where there was evidence that these had been raised to its staff and no action had been taken. He was unhappy that the landlord had refused to consider the roof issues, despite the fact that these had been raised with the surveyor who had visited and reported back to the landlord in January 2020, setting out the work that needed to be carried out, but that had not been done. The landlord issued its stage 2 response about this and other issues on 9 May 2022, which said in relation to the leaking roof:
1. The surveyor attended on 23 January 2020 and observed perished felt, cement verge coming away, and water getting into the leadwork adjoining next door.
2. 3 contractors were invited to quote for the work to:
  1. Remove the bottom row of tiles and replace felt;
  2. Fit dry verge tiles to both gables; and
  3. Replace lead flashing to the wall adjoining next door.
3. It was noted that the soffits may contain asbestos and an asbestos survey was carried out in March 2020.
4. The pandemic meant that its non-emergency works had to be postponed, but there had been considerable delays and it was disappointing the work remained outstanding.
5. Its record keeping was below standard, which had resulted in difficulties in providing a precise overview of events, but it disputed the duration of the earlier impact on the resident due to the level of contact from him. Although it agreed to contact him again and consider further compensation once a works order was raised.
Following contact from the resident, including to explain that there had not previously been more contact him about the leaking roof because only emergency works were being done during the pandemic, the landlord issued a further response on 13 June 2022. It said:
1. The resident reported an issue with the roof and soffits in January 2020, and asked for an update in September 2020, and again on 15 June 2021.
2. Due to the pandemic, it limited its non-urgent repairs and prioritised emergency works. However, there were no restrictions on residents contacting the landlord and, if the roof was having a major impact on his day-to-day living, the resident had the option to contact the landlord.
3. It apologised for the time taken to arrange the works.
4. Its surveyor had submitted the quotations obtained and, once approved, the work order would be raised with the selected contractor.
5. In light of the significant delays, it offered compensation totalling £1,740 for all of the issues raised by the resident. Of this, £200 was awarded for the delays in obtaining quotations for roof repairs, and £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
The landlord’s offer of £1,740 was accepted by the resident and subsequently, on 15 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming payment had been processed, and that the quotation for the roof works had been submitted to the landlord’s head of operations in order that it be approved without delay. It added that it had learnt that it needed to improve its poor communication throughout his case, and to take more action to get quotations and raise works, but it then declined the quotation on 17 June 2022 as not being value for money, and it sought interim patch repairs and another quotation for a replacement roof.
Between August and October 2022, the resident continued to chase the landlord for the works, stating that he felt this matter had gone on long enough, but it continued to communicate about these internally without taking further action. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 January 2023 stating his dissatisfaction that it had failed to carry out the roof works as promised, while raising an order to clean and treat mould without fixing the cause of this. He stated that his roof was still leaking, and that it has been 3 years since the landlord was made aware of this. The landlord treated this email as a new formal complaint.
Between January and June 2023, the landlord exchanged a number of emails internally and with its contractors in an attempt to progress the works, accepting that the mould could not be treated until the roof stopped leaking. The emails related to fresh quotations, scaffolding requirements, asbestos surveys, adaptations for asbestos removal, and reinstatements. The landlord did not communicate with the resident about this during this period.
Although a new formal complaint was logged, the landlord did not issue a stage 1 response but issued another stage 2 response on 19 June 2023 instead. It said:
1. Following the closure by the landlord in June 2022 of the previous complaint, the roof works remained outstanding.
2. Works had been escalated to the operations manager and an urgent appointment to attend the property had taken place on 10 January 2023, in which an operative advised that the roof repairs needed to be sorted out immediately.
3. Its repairs team had chased the contractor for a date when they would be able to commit to the repair.
4. Between February and April 2023, the repairs team had chased for scaffolding requirements so that a final quotation could be provided, and it apologised that the resident had not been provided with any updates or communication during this time.
5. The contractor had requested a further asbestos survey, which had taken place on 6 June 2023, and the results had revealed asbestos in the soffits which will need to be removed.
6. The photographs taken during the asbestos survey had indicated that the tiles on the roof were in good condition, while a subsequent inspection on 16 June 2023 had found around 5 broken slates and some holes in the internal felt.
7. Its surveyor had said that the resident’s roof replacement as part of its redevelopment programme was due in 2025, but the landlord had now requested that this be brought forward.
8. It apologised for the experience that the resident had because of the outstanding works, and for the manner in which his complaint was handled at stage 1, and offered him compensation totalling £1,400 comprising of:
  1. £400 for his time and trouble.
  2. £200 for its poor communication.
  3. £150 for its poor handling of his complaint at stage 1.
  4. £400 for his loss of enjoyment of the property.
  5. £250 for the future impact on him.
Following contact from the resident, the landlord increased its offer on 30 June 2023 to £2,200, and assured the resident that the repairs would be completed at the earliest opportunity. The resident accepted this offer but stated that he felt that the landlord tried to delay the works by continually requesting more inspections.
To date, the roof works have not been completed. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 January 2023 and, as a resolution to his complaint, he is seeking that the roof works be carried out, that the landlord make good the ceiling and decorations, and that further compensation be paid.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme expects that complaints will be raised and escalated by residents within reasonable timescales, of normally within 6 months of the matters arising. The reason for this is that the closer in time the complaint is raised to the act or omission by the landlord, the more likely there is to be a resolution, as well as evidence for it and the Ombudsman to investigate.
The resident raised the roof issue in January 2020 and the landlord’s surveyor visited the property in the same month. It was reasonable for the resident to have an expectation that the work would subsequently be carried out, without further chasing from him, and that there might be some delay because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and restrictions, the first of which began in March 2020. There is evidence that the resident chased the landlord several times between September 2020 and July 2021. The resident has advised that he did not chase until September 2020 because residents had been told by the landlord, when the restrictions began, not to contact it except for emergency repairs.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will not consider “issues that occurred more than six months ago, unless there is evidence that this has been raised to staff and no action has been taken.” The landlord’s stage 1 approach to the original complaint to not investigate this before 13 July 2021 was contrary to its 6-month rule. The matter was raised to its staff and it had already commenced dealing with the roof repairs from January 2020. Indeed, it acknowledged in its stage 2 response to the original complaint that there had been significant delays in its handling of the roof repairs. It again acknowledged that it had failed to progress the roof works in its stage 2 response to the resident’s further complaint of January 2023.
Given that the resident should not have had to make a further complaint in order for the landlord to carry out the roof repairs first identified as necessary by the landlord in January 2020, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs from the date the resident first raised the issue in January 2020. It will examine whether the landlord followed its policies, treated the resident fairly, and whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
It is noted that a number of other repairs were raised with the landlord including issues with drainage, water pooling, doors and windows. The resident has confirmed these matters are resolved, and that it is the roof works and making good of the ceiling and decorations that remain outstanding.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s leaking roof

It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of this matter and that these failings resulted in detriment to the resident. The landlord acknowledged on several occasions that there had been significant delays in carrying out roof works and the resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that these works have not been carried out to date. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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 assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right; and
3. Learn from outcomes.
Under s.11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has an obligation to maintain the structure and exterior of a property. The tenancy agreement states that it has an obligation to maintain the roof, drains, gutters, external pipes and chimneys.
On receiving a report of a leaking roof, the landlord should have carried out an inspection in good time, established the root cause and an appropriate course of action, be it repair or replace, and undertaken the necessary works to resolve the issue at a time convenient to the resident. The landlord must also keep the resident updated throughout the period, notifying them of progress and any delays.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure distinguishes between emergency and appointed non-emergency repairs, the former being a “serious threat to the health and safety of [the resident]”. It is unclear what was the extent of the leak from the roof into the property. The landlord, following the initial survey, took the view that the leak was not a serious threat to the health and safety of the resident.
Under this policy, non-emergency appointed repairs are to be completed within 28 days. The Ombudsman understands that, where specialist assessment and works are required, this timeframe is not always possible. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to act proactively, not cause unreasonable delays, and keep the resident informed. The policy notes that unforeseen delays can occur, following which the landlord will provide as much warning as possible and agree a suitable way forward. Its repairs handbook also confirms that some of its works may take longer than 28 days.
It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. Therefore, landlords are expected to ensure that repairs provide good value for money, including seeking the most cost-effective quotation where appropriate. It was therefore understandable that the landlord obtained multiple quotations for roof works, given the scale of the works and the likely costs involved; and, similarly, that the landlord chose to obtain further quotes when previous ones had lapsed due to the passage of time.
However, there were unreasonably long and frequent delays by the landlord, which resulted in the resident repeatedly chasing it for information, and in further inspections and surveys, which caused additional distress to the resident. These delays arose for a number of reasons which are examined below.
The landlord’s records indicate that the schedule of works for the leaking roof was sent to its major revenue team in February 2020, however it was subsequently unable to find this on its spreadsheet. The Ombudsman notes that this failure also raises the concern that there may be an underlying issue with the landlord’s record keeping, and suggests poor communication between internal departments, which the landlord’s complaint responses later acknowledged. The major revenue team, when it did have the schedule of works and corresponding quotations to examine, took the view that the quotations were higher than expected, so that it delayed the works from September 2020 to the present for further inspections and quotations, but old emails and previous quotations could not be traced following a system update.
On 17 June 2022, the landlord’s head of operations did not approve the quotation that had eventually been provided to them because they did not consider it to be value for money. A contractor was to be asked to attend to carry out an interim patch repair to the roof, and a further quotation was to be sought to replace the entire roof. The head of operations’ decision to not approve the quotation was a decision they were permitted to make, but it was unreasonable that it took almost 2 years to obtain and then reject this. Moreover, at this point the landlord should have informed the resident of what the next steps would be, with a timescale, and this should have been done on each occasion that the landlord identified a fresh delay had arisen, but it did not do so.
In addition, there was delay by the landlord in obtaining approval for the removal of the asbestos. The landlord was informed via an asbestos survey in March 2020 that there was asbestos present in the property’s roof soffits, and it should have taken early and appropriate steps to remove or make this safe. The resident stated that the asbestos was disturbed on the first asbestos surveyor’s visit in March 2020, and that since then the landlord repeated that it would arrange for its removal. The landlord’s records of 22 June 2021 indicate that the asbestos removal and roofing works were approved, but this has not happened to date, which is a significant failing on the part of the landlord. The potential detriment of disturbed asbestos to residents health and wellbeing is widely documented and, under the Housing Health and Safey Rating System, is a hazard.
A second asbestos survey was carried out in February 2022. In November 2022, the landlord noted that the asbestos removal could be carried out, but that its surveyor needed to chase the replacement of soffits, guttering and fascias, after it had continued to discuss this internally in August to September 2022. This demonstrated that the landlord was continuing to consider the asbestos matter, but the delays in obtaining approval for its removal were unacceptable, and a third survey was carried out in June 2023.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction about the number of asbestos surveys undertaken. While it may have been necessary for the contractor to have had up-to-date surveys for their quotations, the landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations and reassured him it was genuinely necessary to obtain a new quotation. Moreover, there was confusion about the reinstatement of soffits and fascias once the asbestos had been removed. This was highlighted in March 2023, when the landlord’s surveyor who undertook a number of inspections, including the first in January 2020, left the organisation. The landlord was then not aware as to which contractors had been considered for the replacement of the soffits and fascias. The landlord has acknowledged that its record-keeping made it difficult to keep track of the issues. In view of this, an order to improve this has been made below.
An additional delay was caused in establishing the scaffolding requirements for the property. From the evidence available, it appears that, at the end of April 2023, the contractor had been chasing the landlord since January 2023 for the scaffolding requirements for the asbestos removal by a separate external contractor, to allow them to price the job correctly. It appears that, in March 2023, the landlord was waiting for asbestos requirement information, which had been sent to the asbestos team, but had not been passed across to the appropriate team. This was further poor inter-team communication by the landlord and contributed even more to the increasing delays.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that the contractors who inspected the roof were not informed before attendance that there were solar panels on the roof, which is indicative of poor communication from the landlord to its contractor. Delays may arise if a third party has not been made aware of the circumstances of an inspection or a job.
It was appropriate for the landlord to request bringing the redevelopment programme due to replace the resident’s roof in 2025 forward in his case and to obtain a corresponding quotation, given its years of delayed works to the roof, and the need to permanently resolve the leak from this. However, the landlord said this in its second stage 2 response of 19 June 2023 and, to date, the works still have not been carried out. This would inevitably undermine trust in the landlord-tenant relationship.
Some of the reasons for the delays that arose have been set out above. However, all of these reasons were ultimately consequences of much larger failings by the landlord. Namely, inaccurate record keeping including the failure to update records appropriately, cross-department and landlord-contractor communication issues, and a failure for the team or person in overall charge of the work to make a definitive and timely decision on how best to deal with the roof issues. Indeed, it appears that the landlord did not have a clear method of informing all members of its teams whose ownership a case falls under, and what their responsibilities of the owner of the case are.
Between February and April 2023, the landlord failed to update the resident. This was already well beyond the timescale of 28 days for non-emergency appointed repairs in its repairs and maintenance procedure, and the resident frequently chased it for updates. When the landlord is unable to follow its outlined timeframes, it is good practice for it to liaise regularly with the resident to explain any difficulties and manage their expectations. However, there was no evidence the landlord communicated any of these further delays to the resident.
In June 2023, while it was understandable that the landlord wished to re-inspect the resident’s roof following the pictures from the asbestos survey carried out on 6 June 2023 that suggested the tiles were in good condition, it did not show due consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is because it requested he clear the loft on his own so it could inspect the interior felt. Given its knowledge of his ill-health, the landlord could have offered him assistance in this matter, or more time to do so, particularly as it only had to inspect the roof again at that time after first doing so in February 2020 because it had left works to this outstanding for almost 3 years and had not kept appropriate records of its earlier inspections.
This was another failure on the part of the landlord that, together with its years of outstanding works and lack of updates in his case, showed a lack of concern for the resident’s wellbeing. Additionally, it is unclear why it was necessary to have the loft cleared out for a further inspection, unless it had not kept appropriate records, as it would have been reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings about the condition of this of its previous surveys. This is because it was unlikely that the roof would have materially improved from its previous inspections, given its lack of works.
The landlord has noted that it tried to raise these works from September 2020 onwards, and that it was initially delayed by the pandemic, however nothing was then actioned, other than repeated inspections and quotations, for next 3 years. Overall, despite its commitments to approve and carry out the works, the resident advises that the works have not taken place to date, which is far outside any reasonable timescale beyond its repairs and maintenance procedure’s aim to carry out all non-emergency appointed repairs within 28 days.
These delays are considerable and would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly because there was no reason given to him for the delays after the pandemic, which were due to the landlord continually obtaining and declining quotations as not being value for money. While the landlord apologised for its failings, it missed many opportunities to complete the works sooner or at all.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation from £1,000 should be considered where there has been a severe long-term impact on the resident. This is from serious failings by the landlord that had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, its response to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship, and it repeatedly failed to provide the same service put things right and learn from outcomes over a significant period of time.
Therefore, the landlord did attempt to put things right by offering compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, by awarding the resident £1,740 for the roof repair delays and other issues on 13 June 2022, and a further £2,200 on 30 June 2023, but it failed to put things right by actually carrying out the repairs to the roof. Moreover, these are still outstanding and without a completion date from the landlord, and so it has been ordered below to provide him and the Ombudsman with a schedule for it to carry out the works, and with regular progress updates on these until their completion.
The Ombudsman has therefore considered this under our remedies guidance and so further compensation of £1,000 is due under this, which the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident below. This has taken into account the length of time that the situation has been ongoing, recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and the cumulative impact on the resident as a result of the series of service failures identified, as well as the previous offers of compensation made. The landlord has also been ordered below to carry out a case review to identify why its failings in the resident’s case occurred, and outline how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again in the future, and to apologise to him for these and provide him and the Ombudsman with the outcome of its review, as well as to review its relevant staff training needs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process under its complaints policy and procedure. Stage 1 focuses on staff taking swift action to resolve concerns effectively, and the landlord aims to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. If the complainant is not satisfied with the stage 1 complaint, they may request an escalation. The aim of the stage 2 process is to resolve the complaint through robust investigation of the issues and is undertaken by an independent person, not involved in the complaint at stage 1. At stage 2, the landlord aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
The resident made a formal complaint about a number of issues including the leaking roof on 3 September 2021, which was not responded to by the landlord. The resident complained again on 6 January 2022, which the landlord acknowledged on 12 January 2022. It provided its stage 1 response 148 working days later than his first stage 1 complaint on 4 April 2022, which was far outside its complaints policy and procedure’s 10-working-day stage 1 response timescale.
It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident for this, and its stage 1 response offered him £75 for the complaint of September 2021 not being recorded. Following a request for escalation on 5 April 2022, it issued its stage 2 response on 9 May 2022. This response was within 21 working days, which was only just not in line with its complaints policy and procedure’s 20-working-day stage 2 response timescale, however it is noted a revised stage 2 compensation offer was later made on 13 June 2022 that also included £75 for its complaint handling at stage 1.
The resident complained again on 5 January 2023. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response. Its stage 2 response was issued 112 working days later on 19 June 2023. This was an excessive amount of time to issue a formal response, far outside its complaints policy and procedure’s 10 and 20-working-day stage 1 and 2 response timescales and would have caused frustration to the resident.
The landlord did not act fairly in its failure to issue a stage 1 response, as this was effectively it failing to investigate fully at both stages of its complaints procedure, or trying to resolve this at the earliest opportunity. In its stage 2 response, it offered an apology and compensation of £150 to ‘put things right’. This was in line with its compensation guidance that states payments of up to £150 may be made in recognition of time and trouble and inconvenience of service failure from significant difficulties in raising a complaint, and delayed responses. Additionally, this was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests an award of compensation from £100 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.
The landlord’s severely delayed and then absent stage 1 complaint responses were nevertheless contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which recommends 2 stages in a complaints process as being ideal. By failing to issue a stage 1 response, the landlord’s complaints process effectively became 1 stage, and this is not appropriate for dispute resolution because there is no opportunity for a resident to challenge or provide additional narrative that may affect the outcome.
It was appropriate of the landlord to apologise for failing to investigate at stage 1, and both of its offers of £150 compensation for its handling of each of the original stage 1 complaints were proportionate to the adverse impact caused to the resident, and its delays in providing its formal responses to him. This is because these were in line with the maximum compensation recommended by its compensation guidance for poor complaint handling, as well as with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
However, in January 2023, the resident raised concerns that this was an outstanding matter from the previous complaint. While the landlord may have then intended to investigate why the roof works had taken by opening a new complaint for this, given the circumstances this was not an appropriate approach to take. The roof works were an outstanding repair from a previous complaint and led to resident having to work his way through yet another complaints process. This would have caused distress and frustration to the resident.
The landlord closed the original complaint on 15 June 2022. This was not appropriate given that the roof repairs were outstanding. It would have been reasonable to issue its stage 2 response including a commitment to doing the work, with a completion timescale that it instead failed to include, and to leave the case open until the works had been completed. This nevertheless did not occur.
Overall, across the landlord’s formal responses there were therefore complaint handling failures which it did not fully put right. It did not recognise that it should have kept the resident’s original complaint open at the time, or that it should not have required him to go through its complaints process again about the same outstanding ongoing roof repair issue when he reiterated his dissatisfaction with this, and it ought to have also remedied these complaint handling failings. Therefore the landlord has been ordered below to apologise to and pay the resident another £150 compensation for this, as well as to carry out a case review and review its relevant staff training needs to try and prevent its complaint handling failures in his case from occurring again in the future.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks, damp and mould, repairs and complaint handling. The relevant cases, and findings, are set out below:
1. 202107263: We found severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould, and for its handling of the complaint including their request for compensation for items damaged by mould.
2. 202207445: We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
3. 202103334: We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning multiple repair issues at the property including a roof leak.
4. 202104706: We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the report damp and mould in the property and the repair to the front door, and for its handling of the complaint.
The Ombudsman also has several other cases awaiting investigation which raise complaints about similar issues. We have therefore issued a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures investigated in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s leaking roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident further compensation totalling £1,150 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
  1. £1,000 due to its continued failure to carry out work to the roof in an appropriate timeframe.
  2. £150 for its further failings in its complaints handling identified by this investigation.
2. Apologise to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report. The apology should come from a senior leader.
3. Contact the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to provide a schedule for it to carry out the outstanding works for his leaking roof, including but not limited to the asbestos, the roof itself, and his internal ceiling and decorations, and to continue to provide him and us with regular progress updates on these until their completion.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. an exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred;
2. identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure, for a period from January 2020 to present;
3. a review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
  1. respond to requests for repairs appropriately, raises quotations for approval with major revenue, and progresses works orders involving more than 1 contractor in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures;
  2. respond to formal complaints appropriately, and keep complaints about ongoing outstanding issues open until their completion. Responses must provide completion timescales and should not require new complaints to be opened for the same ongoing outstanding issue. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
4. a review of its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording, handling, and responses to repairs taking longer than 28 days and formal complaints, and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. the findings and learning from the review;
2. recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future;
3. the number of other residents who have experienced similar issues;
4. the steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 12 weeks to confirm it has complied with the above orders.