Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202229570)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229570

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

11 July 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a roof leak, damage to a ceiling, and damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the removal of garden decking and repairs to the underlying concrete.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a three-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident was represented by the joint tenant of the property in much of the complaint communications. For ease of reference the report will refer to both parties singularly as the ‘resident’ and ‘they’.
Historical evidence shows that the resident first reported water ingress via a bedroom light fitting as a result of a leak from his roof in May 2021. An operative attended that day and inspected the roof from the loft space. It noted that the “membrane/felt in the roof and the general condition of the roof is in a bad way…felt is corroding away and timber tile battens rotting”. The operative recommended that an asbestos test was carried out on the roof membrane, and that a roofer re-inspect the issue. The operative noted that they applied sealant to a small hole in the roof to stop rainwater from entering.
Following an asbestos test to the roof space the following month, which did not report the presence of asbestos, a roofer carried out an inspection on 16 July 2021. The landlord then raised repair works to renew 15 roof tiles and to repair some roof felt, noting that scaffold was required. The landlord’s records suggest that the above work was undertaken on 22 September 2021. The resident reported that water ingress continued the following month, and a job was raised to reinspect the issue. The evidence is inconsistent about whether this inspection took place. There is then no evidence of the landlord taking further action until the resident reported further signs of a leak in April 2022. At that time, the resident reported that water had leaked through the roof into their bedroom and caused damage to their wardrobe and clothes. The landlord noted that the resident believed that a new roof was required. The issue was inspected later that month and a job raised again to renew roof tiles and to readjust flashing.
The resident made a complaint regarding the matter on 8 August 2022. They were dissatisfied that repair work had not progressed since the landlord’s previous inspection, and that the previous repair work undertaken in 2021 had failed to resolve the matter. The resident said that a light fixture had not been fixed since the leak was first reported and mentioned that the ceiling was “bellying in as a result” of the leak.
The landlord apologised that it had failed to rectify the issue and awarded £300 compensation. It also awarded £166 for damaged items and said that it required evidence of the damage for it to make this payment. It set the expectation that the roof would be replaced, but that this could take 18 months. The landlord said that it would make temporary repairs until it could replace the roof, and that it would subsequently reinstate the light and repair any damage to the ceiling.
The evidence is inconsistent in regard to when the temporary repairs to the roof were undertaken. The landlord’s operatives reported that this was undertaken on 26 August 2022. Information in its records also noted that the work was completed in September 2022, and as late as October 2022. The resident disputed that the works were carried out. On 18 November 2022, the landlord’s operative noted that it had visited the resident’s property the day before and reported that a ‘‘re-roof’’ was required to the front of the property in order to stop the issues the resident was reporting. There is no evidence of further repair work being carried out to the roof.
The resident re-raised his complaint in January 2023 due to the roof leak remaining unresolved. The resident was also dissatisfied that they had contacted the landlord about an issue with garden decking and claimed that the landlord should have removed this. The resident mentioned that they had discovered a hole in the underlying concrete that was also in need of repair, raised concerns about damp and mould and with the condition of their ceiling due to the leak, which they also believed contained asbestos.
In its final response to the complaint, the landlord said that it had been out to repair the decking the previous month but had been unable to gain access to complete the work. It advised the resident to contact it if they still wanted the decking removed. It said it had spoken with its asset team who confirmed a partial roof replacement would be undertaken as a minimum and said that it would contact the resident to confirm a timeframe.
The resident referred their complaint to this Service as they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and that they were no further forward in having the roof repaired. To resolve the complaint, the resident said they wanted the landlord to repair the roof to prevent future leaks, to remove the decking, or to consider rehousing them.
The landlord wrote to the resident in April 2023 and confirmed that it would fully replace the roof. It advised this Service that the work would begin on 1 June 2023. It is not known if this work began or has been completed since. The landlord also said that it subsequently refused to carry out the decking works due to the resident’s behaviour.

Assessment and findings

The law and the landlord’s policies

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This would include the roof and internal ceilings.
The landlord has a repairs policy which sets out how it responds to responsive repairs. It states that each repair is allocated a pre-defined priority which reflects the degree of urgency with the aim of completing repairs first time. This policy gives no mention of the full scope of the priority categories by which it defines repairs, nor any timescales in which it undertakes them. The usual timeframe for routine repairs amongst social landlords is 28 calendar days, and 90 calendar days for planned maintenance, which is taken as a baseline against which to consider the landlord’s actions in this case. The policy does not specifically refer to planned programmes of works; however, the Ombudsman may consider it reasonable to defer some repairs until a planned programme of works in order to best manage its resources.
Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 relates to housing conditions. This states that landlords have a duty to review housing conditions and identify any hazards that might exist. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assesses 29 different types of housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of occupants. Asbestos is one of the 29 hazards set out in the HHSRS. Under the HHSRS, the landlord needs to identify the location of any asbestos in the property, assess how vulnerable it is to damage and identify any current damage or potential fibre release. Damp and mould is also one of the 29 hazards that a landlord has an obligation to investigate.

Response to the resident’s report of a roof leak, damage to a ceiling and damp and mould.

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the resident’s roof.
The landlord went some way to acknowledge in its initial complaint response in August 2022 where its service had fallen short, stating that it had failed to rectify the issue with the resident’s roof at that point. This was appropriate given that the records show that the roof leak was reported in May 2021, approximately 15 months earlier, and that there had been no apparent long-term fix by that stage.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise this, and to accept responsibility for the overall time taken up until that point, the landlord failed to provide an explanation for the entirety of the delays, nor was its offer of £300 compensation proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the 15 months delay, most especially as the leak had still not been resolved.
The landlord also demonstrated a lack of urgency in arranging for the roof to be replaced saying that it could take up to an additional 18 months. Given that the resident had already been waiting 15 months, suggesting that they may have to wait a further 18 months, was not reasonable given that by that time the resident would have been experiencing roof leaks for almost three years.
The temporary repairs the landlord had scheduled, to renew roof tiles and roof felt, had also been outstanding since being raised as a result of an inspection undertaken in April 2022. In addition, the proposed work was similar in nature to repairs that had failed to resolve the issue in September 2021 and the landlord’s records show that it had knowledge in April 2022 that ongoing repairs were no longer viable. Internal correspondence during April 2022evidence that the roof had at that time been referred to its asset team to survey for a replacement. This correspondence also noted that when undertaking previous repairs to the roof, the landlord’s contractor had reported it would carry out “make-do” repairs but that the roof “condition was poor and only a replacement would suffice.” This suggests that the roof was assessed as being beyond reasonable repair at that time.
The landlord’s failure to fully consider its own records and the urgency of the need to replace the roof was inappropriate. Given that no interim repairs were possible, and the resident was clearly impacted by the issue, a more reasonable and time-appropriate plan to replace the roof should have been sought. The landlord should also have taken more robust steps to establish the impact of the leaks on the resident and whether it would have been appropriate to offer them a decant or to support them in seeking alternative accommodation if the ongoing leaks were making the resident’s property uninhabitable. That the landlord has not evidenced that it took any steps to do so is a significant failing, especially given that the roof had still not been replaced by the time the landlord issued its final response in February 2023. Despite the assurances given to this service that the work would begin on 1 June 2023, it is also not apparent if the replacement has been completed.
The records show that the resident reported water ingress through his bedroom ceiling light in May and October 2021 and that the landlord attended the property on 6 October 2021 to ensure the electrics were safe. The earliest evidence of the resident then chasing the light repair and reporting damage to the ceiling following this was in his complaint made in August 2022. Although the roof leak would likely have held up the above repairs, there is no evidence of the landlord assessing the condition of the ceiling as part of its complaint investigations. This was unreasonable given that the resident raised concerns in his initial complaint that the ceiling was “bellying”. By the time the resident raised the complaint again in January 2023, he reported that the celling was on the verge of caving and had a hole in it and was a clearly raised as a concern in his subsequent escalation request.
Furthermore, whilst there is evidence of the landlord carrying out an asbestos check for the roof, this service has seen no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to establish whether there was any asbestos present in the ceiling and if so whether this had sustained damage or had been disturbed, and whether this might require prompt action by the landlord. This is a significant failing by the landlord, particularly given that this was a specific concern raised by the resident and its obligations under the HHSRS.
The resident advised this Service that the leak has caused issues in his property with damp and mould. In response to this service’s information request, the landlord said that it did not have any record of reports of damp and mould by the resident. However, this is not consistent with the evidence seen by this service.
When the resident re-raised his complaint about the unresolved roof leak in January 2023, he mentioned that his house smelled of damp and mould, which he believed resulted from damp loft insulation and a damp carpet following the leak. In his escalation of his complaint on 26 January 2023, the resident said, “the room (understood to be the affected bedroom) has developed mould” and that the landlord had not rectified the issue. The landlord gave no regard to the matter in its complaint responses.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s situation was inappropriate and falls significantly outside of the service that is expected of it in accordance with its repair obligations. Given the extend of the failures by the landlord a finding of maladministration has been made. Whilst it offered some compensation in its initial stage one response, and although the evidence suggests that the leak was intermittent, the amount offered was not proportionate to the length of the delay nor the impact on the resident. The landlord offered no further compensation in its final response despite further unreasonable delays and the clear and significant detriment to the resident.
An order for £1,200 compensation has therefore been made. This is made up of £700 (inclusive of the £300 previously offered) for its delay to replace the roof, £400 for a lack of response and inaction in relation to the condition of the resident’s ceiling and light fitting, and £200 for its lack of response and inaction in regards to the resident’s later reports of damp and mould. The overall amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances that may have had a significant impact on the resident, where the circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
Orders have also been made for the landlord to provide the resident and this service with a firm date for when the roof replacement will take place, if it has not done so already, and a survey of the property with regards to the damage to the ceiling, the light fitting and the resident’s reports of damp and mould, unless these issues have now been resolved.

Decking

The resident first raised the decking issue as part of his complaint in January 2023. In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged that the removal of decking was discussed with the resident when he first moved into the property, in May 2021. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge that its records showed that it had specifically agreed to remove the decking at that time. Nonetheless, it accepted that it had taken no further action in relation to the matter until the resident reported a hole in the concrete underneath the decking. The earliest evidence of the resident reporting the hole was on 17 August 2022, and an appointment was made to investigate this on 25 October 2022. The records show that this appointment was kept but further investigation were required as the operative was unable to assess the hole due to decking being in place.
In investigating the above, the landlord noted that the October job had been closed down with no evidence of further action being taken since. However, in its response to this aspect of the complaint it did not consider that the above caused a considerable delay in resolving the matter. This was inappropriate given that the resident had reported the hole almost five months prior to making a complaint about the issue. Therefore, the landlord did not remedy the time and trouble that the resident would have taken in pursuing the matter. Although the landlord agreed to complete the necessary work in its complaint response in January 2023, it did not provide a timescale in which it would do so. This was unreasonable as a landlord should include timescales within which any outstanding actions will be completed, even if these are provisional.
In its final response one month later, the landlord said that it had attended the resident’s home to carry out the necessary work, but had not been able to gain access. However, the resident claimed that operatives did not attend the property when agreed, and that they attended the following week without sufficient notice. No contemporaneous evidence has been provided for this investigation to show that that a job was raised in relation to the decking during that period, nor that the landlord or its contactor informed the resident when it would attend to carry out the works. Lacking the appropriate records, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it took sufficient action to progress this repair and to provide the resident with sufficient notice.
This was a further failing, given that in its previous response to the complaint, it identified record keeping as a point of learning and said that it would make sure that contractors ensured that correct updates were added to its system to confirm repair attempts and any actions taken. Its failure to do so shows that the landlord failed to learn from its previous mistakes.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the removal of garden decking and repairs to the underlying concrete was inappropriate and falls significantly outside of the service that is expected of it in accordance with its repair obligations. Given the extend of the failures by the landlord a finding of maladministration has been made. To remedy this the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation of £200. This consists of £150 for the inconvenience the resident will likely have experienced due to its delay in progressing the work, and £50 for its poor record keeping.
It is noted that following its final response, the landlord advised this Service that its contractor refused the decking repair due to the resident being aggressive. It did not explain this incident further nor explain its intentions in relation to progressing the work. This Service understands that the landlord has a duty of care to protect the welfare of its staff members and to treat any report about unreasonable behaviour seriously. However, the landlord still has an obligation to fulfil its repair obligations within a reasonable timeframe, to investigate any allegations made and to have procedures that enable it to put proportionate measures in place in light of any identified risk.
A further order has therefore been made for the landlord to carry out an investigation of the reports made about the resident’s behaviour and if necessary to carry out a risk assessment and to put in place proportionate measures in light of any identified risk. The landlord is then to arrange a firm date with the resident for the removal of the garden decking. Once this is removed, the landlord is to inspect the hole underneath the decking and then write to the resident (copying in this Service) to confirm what actions it will take to repair the hole and the date this will be done.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a roof leak, damage to a ceiling, and damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the removal of garden decking and repairs to the underlying concrete.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £1,500 compensation in total. This includes:
  1. £700 for its repair handing failures in relation to the recurring roof leak. This is inclusive of the £300 previously offered, if this has not already been paid.
  2. £400 for its repair handling failures in relation to the condition of the resident’s ceiling and light fitting.
  3. £200 for its inaction in response to the resident’s report of damp and mould.
  4. £150 for its repair handling failures in relation to the garden decking and the resident’s report of a hole in the underlying concrete.
  5. £50 for its record keeping failure.
3. To provide the resident and this service with a firm date by which the replacement roof will be completed, if this has not already been actioned.
4. To carry out an investigation into the reports made about the resident’s behaviour and, if necessary, to carry out a risk assessment and to put in place proportionate measures in light of any identified risk. Arrange a firm date with the resident for the removal of the garden decking. Once this is removed, the landlord is to inspect the hole underneath the decking and then write to the resident (copying in this Service) to confirm what actions it will take to repair the hole and the date this will be done.
5. Undertake an inspection, in conjunction with a senior member of staff, of the issues with damp and mould and condition of the damaged ceiling. This should include an asbestos test of the ceiling if necessary. The landlord should create a report of the inspection and its findings, and then write to the resident (copying in this Service) confirming what it found, what works if any it intends to complete, and the date that this will be done by.
6. Carry out a review of its record keeping practices in light of the findings of this report and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure that it keeps robust repair records going forward.
7. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.