Sheffield City Council (201910086)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910086

Sheffield City Council

13 April 2021

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:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks in her property.
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about major works and service charges.
3. the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat. The lease commenced in 2016.
The lease sets out the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the building, and the leaseholder’s responsibility for the property’s doors, ceilings, floors, skirtings, internal walls and internal surfaces of exterior walls. The lease covenants the leaseholder to pay a reasonable part of the landlord’s costs incurred in carrying out repairs and improvements to the structure and exterior of the demised premises and building and making good any defects affecting the structure.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance leaflet sets different timescales for different types of repairs priority. These are emergency – four hours; urgent – 24 hours; appointable – 25 days; and planned – 55 days. While burst pipes are classified as emergency repairs and leaking guttering is classified as planned repairs, there is no specific priority for leaks.
At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a three stage complaints procedure. At an initial informal stage it aimed to agree a way forward to resolve a problem within three working days. For more complex complaints it aimed to respond at a first ‘Investigation’ stage within 28 days, following which customers could request escalation to the landlord’s final stage, ‘Investigation Review,’ also aimed to be responded to within 28 days. If it is not possible to meet timeframes, a revised timeframe should be provided, and customers should be informed of further delays.

Summary of events

In July 2016 the landlord carried out improvements to the resident’s block, which included replacement of the roof of the resident’s porch.
In November 2018 the resident advises her property experienced two leaks. Records provided by the landlord only appear to relate to the second leak, although all November 2018 records were requested during the Ombudsman’s investigation.
After her son’s bedroom ceiling burst and started to drip constantly, the resident reports she raised the issue with neighbours in properties above her, who found no leaks. She advises she then called the landlord, who informed her it was her responsibility to resolve it as a leaseholder. After around a week of continued dripping, she called the landlord’s housing repairs team again on a Monday and it was agreed someone would be sent out. Later, her upstairs neighbour confirmed to her the landlord had arranged to visit that Thursday, and he also showed a discovery that water was running down his bathroom airing cupboard wall, apparently from above. The resident advises the leak, which lasted for 15 days, stopped dripping the day after the landlord’s scheduled attendance, although a requested inspection of her own flat did not occur.
Just over a week later, the resident advises the leak “reappeared” in the lounge and caused bellying, cracks and mould to the wall, which she reported to the landlord who arranged a visit for the following Wednesday. The landlord’s records advise that on 30 November 2018, a job was raised for an operative to attend on 5 December 2018, a Wednesday, to repair a leaking communal walkway outside flats above the resident’s property.
The resident’s account then advises that an operative inspected her home, took photos, and inspected a service corridor behind the affected lounge wall which he confirmed was running with water. He also confirmed that on carrying out a water pressure check to the block, no drop in pressure was found.
The landlord’s records advise that on 5 December 2018, a roofer attended who believed the entry point came from one of the flats above, after no defects on a walkway above the resident’s property were found. Subsequently, on 6 December 2018, the landlord’s records advise it raised a further job for “an occasional leak,” to send a plumber to flats above the resident’s property. On 13 December 2018 the landlord advises it visited a property above the resident and left a card when unable to gain access. Based on the resident’s account, the leak stopped around this time after occurring for “approx ten days,” and she is not aware of any repair works being carried out at that time.
On 16 January 2019 the resident returned a leaseholder feedback survey to the landlord in which she reported issues caused by poor works to the porch roof in 2016, after which a major works invoice was placed on hold. On 28 January 2019 the landlord’s contemporaneous records advise an asset management surveyor visited while she was at work and identified that the majority of the issues were not roof related. The surveyor noted access to internal areas including those adjacent to roof works was not possible. The resident had previously explained that access to the property was limited without her presence, due to her two sons’ vulnerabilities, and the landlord subsequently contacted her to arrange an inspection when she would be present.
On 30 January 2019 the landlord advises it gained access “under the access procedure” to a property above the resident and stopped a leak. As the resident’s account indicates the leak around this time stopped in mid-December 2018, it is unclear if the resident was impacted by the leak reported here, and the landlord provides no further detail about the leak and what was done to stop it.
On 18 February 2019 the resident advises a further leak impacted her kitchen and lounge. In correspondence to the landlord in February 2019, the resident advised she was left with no oven, microwave or kitchen light and her “wrecked” flat had become a health hazard, contrary to the landlord’s claims it had made “improvements.” The resident asked the landlord to rehouse her sons, buy back her flat, write off bills and compensate her. She threatened legal action and asked it to “work on a deal” in “the quickest possible time” to address everything she had mentioned.
On 20 February 2019 the landlord’s repairs records report an operative made safe electrics and on 23 February 2019, the landlord advises it visited a flat above the resident’s property and was unable to gain access. On 25 February 2019, a repairs surveyor carried out an external inspection. The inspection identified signs of damp to the wall at the rear of the resident’s property, possible “remnants” of a leak since no running water or water residue was noticed. The inspection also identified the most likely source was a property above, as the wall affected was directly below the kitchen area.
On 27 February 2019 the landlord internally inspected the resident’s property after initial delays due to the resident’s work hours and miscommunication. The inspection confirmed the leak was coming from a vacant flat above, and on 28 February 2019 the leak was repaired. The landlord and resident’s records advise the leak appeared to have been due to the former occupant of the vacant flat having removed a washer without turning off necessary valves, and was resolved by isolating the water supply.
The landlord’s subsequent records advise it confirmed with the resident that there was no more running water into the property and it took steps to test the block heating pipes for leaks. The landlord and resident’s records also advise that when the leak stopped, it was decided to carry out repairs to a flat roof which were completed on 26 March 2019, although the landlord is vague about these. The landlord’s records advise there was no awareness of any further repairs being required, since the leak had stopped and was likely from the vacant property whose water supply had been isolated.
In March 2019 the landlord received concerns from the resident and a MP on her behalf. The resident was emailed information about the landlord’s buyback scheme and advised that leasehold internal repairs were covered by the landlord’s Buildings Insurance Policy. The resident was recommended multiple times to contact the insurance company to discuss repairs, in response to which she explained it was impossible to have repairs carried out due to her sons’ issues.
On 17 March 2019 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. She complained that as a result of poor workmanship of works to the porch roof in 2016, the porch flooring was wrecked, walls were damp, roof struts dripped continually with water in colder months, and her electric meter and fuse board were affected every time it rains. She explained she had experienced several leaks and the flat was still not totally dry and the porch, whose plastic sheeting did not provide enough insulation, never would be until rectified. She complained about service charges of over £5,000 for improvements and of over £2,000 for a sprinkler system fitted before she bought her flat. She outlined costs she wished to counterclaim totalling over £7,500, including electricity costs, damage to contents and impact on mental health.
On 28 March 2019, the landlord discussed the complaint internally. It noted a surveyor who inspected had not gained full access to the property but reported the porch was dry and any damp issues within the rest of the property would not be related to the block’s roof renewal, as the flat was on the ground floor. On 2 April 2019 the landlord’s repairs service contacted the resident concerning the leak aspects of her complaint. The resident confirmed that the leak was resolved at that point in time and asked the landlord to read the complaint and “put something on the table.”
On 10 April 2019 the landlord’s repairs surveyor inspected the resident’s property. It was noted that defects highlighted by the resident related to recent leaks within properties above that left defective areas within the flat, including wall and ceiling plaster in the living room which the surveyor took photos of. The surveyor noted access was not gained to other internal areas such as the resident’s son’s bedroom. The surveyor noted the resident highlighted damp issues within the porch which, under the landlord’s roof renewal programme, had a corrugated covering replaced by a polycarbonate roof. The surveyor noted that if natural or mechanical ventilation was not available within the porch, this would contribute to condensation from household activity such as laundry. The surveyor made one recommendation, to fit a rainwater shoe to address dispersal of water over the side of the roof onto items below.
On 28 April 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord’s buyback team stating she wanted to sell her flat back as the landlord’s improvement scheme had “wrecked” it and it was in a horrendous state due to the landlord’s inadequacies. She acknowledged the landlord had stated it would carry out repairs but her sons “would not be able to stand the intrusion.”
On 2 May 2019 the landlord issued its stage one response, which included information it had provided in previous correspondence to the resident.
1. It acknowledged difficulty making a complaint and explained how to submit these.
2. In regard to the porch roof, the landlord explained the resident’s flat had been part of a roofing programme which included re-covering the main roof, and replacing the porch roof with a new polycarbonate roof with increased thermal properties and its supports with powder coated aluminium. It acknowledged when its asset management team visited there was evidence of condensation on the roof struts and the resident explained water ran over the edge onto service boxes including her meter, and no other problems were identified with the roof. It noted it had been recommended to fit a ‘rainwater shoe’ to disperse water away from the edge of the roof, but that the resident did not feel this would resolve problems with the porch roof including condensation. It provided explanation about how the porch is prone to condensation and how to avoid this. It noted that the resident complained about quality of work to the porch in July 2017 which had not been investigated until January 2019 following a further complaint about the invoice she received. It acknowledged it should have acted sooner. It apologised for this and confirmed this had been raised with the programme team to avoid this occurring again.
3. In regards to the leaks, it advised its repairs service had investigated leaks into her flat. It explained access was attempted to an upstairs property to resolve the leak in November to December 2018 and then access was gained under the landlord’s access procedure on 30 January 2019 and necessary repairs were carried out. It advised a further leak was attempted to be investigated on 23 February 2019 without any access to an upstairs property and repairs were carried out a few days later. It advised that as a further measure, some roof work was completed on 26 March 2019. It noted that on 2 April 2019 the resident confirmed to the repairs service that no further leaks had occurred. It acknowledged that due to access issues there was a delay carrying out repairs in November 2018 but that repairs were completed in a timely manner. It advised that if she had suffered any loss as a result of the leaks she should make a claim under the leaseholder Buildings Insurance Policy.
4. In regards to the buyback request, the landlord confirmed the relevant department had provided the resident with details and she had completed an application form. It confirmed it had also discussed selling the property on the open market.
5. In regards to roof costs, the landlord confirmed the costs covered work to the resident’s property and block and she was liable for these under the terms of her lease. It confirmed the porch roof had been investigated and a solution identified so an invoice of £5,400 stood and was due for payment.
6. In regards to sprinkler system costs, the landlord confirmed this was completed prior to the resident’s purchase. It confirmed a letter was sent to the seller’s solicitor in 2016 in relation to this, and apportionment should have been agreed between her and the seller prior to completion. It advised any complaint about this should be raised with the resident’s solicitor. It advised it recognised invoices represented significant costs and provided explanation about payment options it offered.
Following this, when the resident attempted a claim with the landlord’s building insurers and reported two leaks were due to roof works, the insurer informed her it would not accept a claim if the cause was faulty workmanship. The resident expressed concern to the landlord that if she accepted the complaint response and ignored the roof being at fault, insurance would pay for repairs but she would have to pay the £5,400 major works service charges. Following this, the landlord sought to clarify the cause of the leaks so the resident could resolve the repairs. Repairs staff confirmed that based on system information, it was difficult to say where the leaks came from. It was considered unlikely that the leak was from the roof as this had a slight pitch. It was considered to be more likely to be from the walkway or a property above. It was explained that the design of the blocks meant it can be a long process of trial and error to find a leak and these can appear a long way from the source. It was considered there was no evidence that the leaks were due to faulty workmanship.
Later, the landlord’s records advise it fitted a rainwater shoe fitment recommended in its surveyor’s visit on 10 April 2019.This was raised under the Planned Work priority code with a complete timeframe of up to 55 days. Initial works were done on 6 June 2019 and further works on 26 July 2019, after the resident raised concern that the work done was different from a neighbouring property.
In July 2019, the resident requested escalation of her complaint to the landlord’s final ‘Investigation Review’ stage. The resident contended, using technical detail and diagrams, that water ingress originated from the roof works the landlord carried out in 2016. She contended that a new roof was placed over elements of the original roof and the new roof leaks onto the old roof, which results in water forcing its way downwards. She has indicated this may be linked to three cylindrical vents with conical hats placed on the roof as part of the works. She contended a previous repair simply stopped water from entering the flat above and “kicked it sideways” to her flat. She contended that the operative’s finding of no loss of pressure in the block in December 2018, when investigating the leak, evidenced the leak originated from the roof rather than elsewhere.
On 2 August 2019 the landlord emailed to update the resident. It advised that to make a fair assessment it needed additional information to reach a conclusion. It advised it took its responsibilities seriously and it wanted to learn from the complaint if there had been missed opportunities and misdiagnosis of problems. It advised an independent surveyor’s report was required on the issues of water penetration and the roof material which would be shared with the resident. It advised it would be in contact in regard to the visit of a surveyor to the resident’s home and block “shortly.”
On 4 November 2019 the resident contacted this Service. She reported she had awaited a final response since July 2019, however her landlord had not provided this and informed her it needed more time. Her account advises the landlord informed her it tried unsuccessfully to book an independent surveyor from July until November 2019. She queried a surveyor being required as the issue was not to do with the building structure. She reported one wall was covered in mould, the lounge had cracks and the kitchen ceiling was affected. She advised one of her sons was now on medication and the other had “smashed the walls in” as dripping in his room had affected his autism.
On 10 December 2019, 21 January 2020 and 29 January 2020 this Service contacted the landlord and asked it to progress the complaint in its procedure and update the resident.
On 19 February 2020 the complaint was considered by this Service to have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, after its complaints team explained the service team were not responding about how it was dealing with the complaint, and after the resident had reported that the landlord had not contacted her or done anything about repairs.

Post complaint

On 25 June 2020 the resident reported a leak affecting her kitchen due to a blockage, which she was advised to report to her landlord.
On 9 December 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to offer a visit from an independent surveyor on 26 January 2021. On 19 January 2021 the landlord then advised that the independent surveyor had ceased inspections due to lockdown, and a survey would be prioritised when they started inspections again.
In February 2021, the resident contacted this Service concerning complaints about being asked to pay in excess of £2,000 and £5,000 for sprinkler system and roof major works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), which sets out the type of complaints which the Ombudsman will and may not investigate. The Scheme sets out the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are more effectively decided in another procedure, such as an insurance or financial claim; concern the level of service charges such as major works; or fall within jurisdiction of another Ombudsman such as buybacks of properties and rehousing, which in the case of local authorities are the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
It is therefore not in this Service’s authority or expertise to decide if the landlord should buy back the resident’s property, rehouse her sons, decide on major works bills, or assess a claim for damages including impact on health. However, it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

The resident’s reports of leaks in her property

In accordance with the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the building. As a result, it was necessary for it to investigate the resident’s reports of continued water ingress and to take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identified.
After the resident’s initial leak in November 2018, her account advises the landlord informed her it was her responsibility as a leaseholder. This may not be unreasonable, given that internal issues are a leaseholder’s responsibility. However, this approach may not always be appropriate depending on the severity of an issue and whether flats above the resident’s property are tenanted, where there would be an obligation for the landlord to intervene. It is unclear this was assessed. The resident’s account then advises that three days after she advised the landlord’s housing repairs team the leak was continuing, the landlord attended and the leaks stopped. This suggests that the landlord accepted its obligations once it was made aware water ingress continued and conducted investigations and repairs in a timely manner. However, there are concerns about the landlord’s records which are addressed below.
In late November to mid-December 2018, when the resident advises her property experienced dripping for ten days and internal damage, the landlord and resident’s combined accounts advise that between 5 and 13 December 2018 the landlord inspected the resident’s property and a walkway, and attempted to access flats above the resident’s property. The landlord reports it then gained access to a flat above the resident’s property under an emergency access procedure on 30 January 2019 and stopped an unspecified leak. While this was in accordance with the works priority timeframe the resident’s reports of “an occasional leak” was raised under, the resident’s account advises the leak stopped by this time, and there are concerns about the landlord’s records which are addressed below.
On further reports from the resident in February 2019, the landlord and resident’s records advise that the landlord swiftly attended her property to make safe electrics, carried out multiple inspections and resolved the leak within nine days by isolating the water of a property above, which it required access to. It then took steps to monitor with the resident if the leak was resolved. While some communication issues occurred, overall this demonstrates that for this report, the landlord conducted investigations, repairs and repairs monitoring in a reasonable and timely manner.
Following resolution of leaks, the landlord advised the resident that she could make a claim on insurance for repairs to be carried out. While there is sympathy with the resident’s explanation that repairs would be disruptive to her vulnerable sons, repairs works are a normal and essential response to home disrepair and it is generally recommended to hold contents insurance. The landlord’s signposting of the resident to its insurance company to progress repairs, and offer to waive excess, was therefore not unreasonable.
The Ombudsman recognises that while it is distressing to experience repeated problems with water ingress, it is not uncommon for these to require repeat inspections and various attempts at identifying and addressing the problem before a fully effective solution is found. It is also recognised that there can be mitigating factors such as difficulty accessing a property or lack of cooperation. In such circumstances a landlord’s response to repairs may be reasonable if records confirm it acted or attempted to act appropriately.
This Service’s spotlight report on repairs confirms landlords and its contractors should keep clear, accurate and accessible records of repairs reports and responses to them, including appointments, inspections, reports, works carried out and completion dates. This is expected to allow effective investigation of a complaint by this Service and by a landlord in its own procedure, but also to allow a landlord to effectively deliver services. The spotlight report also outlines that properties should be visited where appropriate, and encourages landlords to learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman would expect to see detail from the landlord’s own records about an inspection of the resident’s property and service corridor in December 2018, and how it attempted to effectively monitor matters with the resident, through visits or other communication before and/or after any actions it took to stop the leak, prior to the leak in February 2019. This Service would expect to see detail about a reportedly arranged visit to a property above the resident in November 2018, and findings on reports of water running down a bathroom wall apparently from above. This Service would expect to see more detail about the leak the landlord says it stopped in January 2019. However, none of this information was provided to this Service.
The Ombudsman would also expect clearer explanation to the resident and this Service about actions to resolve repairs. There appears to be contradiction in the landlord advising that there were no defects with the roof, but confirming that some roof works were completed on 26 March 2019. The landlord does not satisfactorily explain what the works were or what issues were identified that the works were to address.
The Ombudsman would expect to see a landlord demonstrate it learns from outcomes. Since some landlord staff acknowledged it was difficult to say where previous leaks came from based on system information, there is concern it does not demonstrate what improvements are now in place to improve system information.
While leaks stopped in November and December 2018, it is not possible to link these directly to effective investigation/resolution by the landlord. Although the benefit of time shows similar leaks have not reoccurred, such recordkeeping clearly impacted the landlord’s later ability to assess them, impacted attempts to make an insurance claim, and will have caused ongoing concern whether sources of the leaks were addressed. This is not appropriate.
Therefore, although the leaks did not cease in excessive timeframes and there is limited evidence to support the resident’s suspicions for causes, this Service is not satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks in her property was reasonable.

The resident’s concerns about major works and service charges

The resident has submitted technical diagrams and explanation to outline paths she contends leaks took from the roof of the property when affecting her home. It is not in this Service’s authority or expertise to make definitive decisions on such matters, as this Service cannot carry out inspections of individual properties or assess technical information in detail. However, it can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the major works.
Following the resident’s initial reports that leaks affecting the property and porch were due to major works in 2016, the landlord carried out external and internal inspections and recommended fitting of a rainwater shoe for one issue which was completed within reasonable timescales. Both the landlord’s major works and repairs departments concluded that there was no evidence of defects with the roof, that it was considered more likely leaks came from flats above the resident’s property, and inspections provided visual indication of this. In its response the landlord apologised for delayed response to previous major works concerns, which it confirmed would be raised with the service area; confirmed its position on the roof works; and confirmed its position that major works service charges stood. As the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its staff, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about major works.
In regards to service charges, this Service’s authority is limited. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which may assess quality of major works and can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. While the landlord provided position on matters at that point in time, when a leaseholder’s dispute involves service charges costs, it is good practice to include a reminder of their right to apply to the Tribunal. It is also helpful to signpost leaseholders to the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) which can provide free and independent advice. This Service is unable to see that the landlord demonstrated that the resident was informed of this right in any correspondence to her.
When the resident continued to dispute the major roof works, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide to review the resident’s concerns further and commission an independent expert as part of its final response to the complaint. Where there are matters of technical dispute a resident can have the option to commission an independent surveyor, or appoint a single joint expert as part of an housing conditions claim. This was therefore a positive step by the landlord to attempt to bring a more definitive closure to the dispute about the quality of the major roof works.
There is however no evidence that effective steps were taken to follow up this commitment and to arrange an appointment for an independent surveyor until December 2020, even though this Service has contacted the landlord from December 2019 and the landlord itself had proposed this action in August 2019.
The landlord acknowledges to this Service that there has been a delay in commissioning the survey, in part due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This Service recognises the challenges Covid-19 has caused to landlords’ resources and services, and also that there appears to have been no further reports of roof-related leaks. However, prior to Covid-19, there was a seven month period where the landlord failed to meet its commitment for an investigation by an independent surveyor; no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the landlord appropriately updated the resident until December 2020; and the time that has elapsed since the landlord’s commitment is 20 months, which overall is not reasonable.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s response exceeded its set timeframes by over two weeks. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this in addition to reported issues making a complaint, which was reasonable. It is not in this Service’s authority to decide on buybacks or rehousing, which is the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, however the landlord also provided a reasonable response to the resident’s requests by providing relevant explanation and information.
It is not disputed that the resident has requested escalation of her complaint since July 2019. Following this, the landlord contacted her in August 2019 to advise it required more time to commission its own independent surveyor to investigate the resident’s concerns. This demonstrated the landlord was seeking to take steps to review if there were any issues with its existing conclusions, and it can be reasonable for a landlord to delay in response while it gathers relevant information.
However, when this continued to be outstanding, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to be able to evidence that it updated the resident and provided reassurances to her in a timely fashion that the issue was being monitored. As explained in the Service’s new Complaint Handling Code, landlords should keep residents regularly updated and informed even where there is no new information to provide, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principle to ‘Put It Right’ and effectively handle a complaint to prevent unnecessary escalation.
Furthermore, the landlord has failed to respond at stage two of its complaints procedure for a long period of time and this Service contacted the landlord from December 2019 and asked it to progress the complaint. Following this, the landlord should have provided a final response, in which any information about outstanding actions could have been included. This Service’s guidance to landlords for responding to complaints recommends landlords give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take, to help effectively manage resident expectations as well as for a landlord to determine a reasonable timeframe in which it will aim to meet promises.
A complaint can provide independent, practical, and unique insights, provide an early warning system for significant problems and act as a catalyst for organisational learning. Considering a complaint further allows for a review of service delivery at a more senior level, bringing a fresh pair of eyes and a wider perspective and level of expertise. Such senior reviews provide an opportunity for landlords to spot patterns and nip issues in the bud. A holistic review of a complaint at a more senior level is therefore always recommended.
Not escalating the complaint through the complaints procedure prevented this opportunity here. While it was positive for the landlord to decide to obtain an expert’s view on the resident’s specific dispute, it was inappropriate to be overly reliant on an expert’s view for one aspect to delay a review of service delivery for other issues, as the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the complaint has resulted in this Service’s investigation of the complaint prior to its exhaustion of the landlord’s procedure. This is not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles to follow fair processes and learn from outcomes.
Where service failures are identified by this Service, an award of compensation is considered appropriate, to reflect the additional distress/inconvenience experienced as a result of these service failures. This Service takes into account its Remedies Guidance when determining cases and has set out an appropriate compensation award below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of leaks in her property.
2. There was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about major works and service charges.
3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to demonstrate it responded to the resident’s reports of leaks between November 2018 and January 2019 appropriately, which is compounded by a failure in its recordkeeping.
The landlord unreasonably delayed in its commitment to arrange for an independent surveyor to inspect the property. The landlord failed to demonstrate it updated the resident in an appropriate and timely way.
The landlord inappropriately failed to respond at stage two of its complaints procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £650. This comprises:
1. £200 in light of any distress and inconvenience as a result of its repairs failures.
2. £100 in light of any distress and inconvenience as a result of its major works and service charges failures.
3. £350 in light of any distress or inconvenience as a result of its complaints handling failures.
The landlord to:
1. If it has not already, take steps to progress the inspection by an independent surveyor and to update the resident about the timeframe.
2. If it has not already, write to the resident within four weeks of the inspection, to provide a final position on the major roof works, information on next steps and how the issue can be taken further, where applicable.
3. Review the repairs record keeping failures identified and confirm measures now in place/being taken to ensure a wide range of records are kept, in line with this Service’s spotlight report on repairs.
4. Review the complaint handling issues identified; what went wrong when this Service contacted the landlord; and explain how it will ensure it responds to complaints and contacts from this Service in line with its complaints policy, the Complaint Handling Code and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
The landlord should contact this Service and the resident within six weeks of the date of this decision to update on the status of the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord to review the level of information provided to residents in response to service charge disputes to residents.