Tower Hamlets Homes (202301497)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301497

Tower Hamlets Homes

12 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak and associated repairs.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy agreement does not indicate the type of tenancy that the resident has at the property. The resident has lived at the property, which is a 3 bedroom, 2 storey maisonette, since 1993 with his twin children who are 15. The landlord advised this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It is noted however that during his complaint correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident advised that he had suffered from a stroke. He also stated that his children were asthmatic.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states as follows:
1. It aims to complete all repairs within the agreed timescales and deliver repairs which are “right first time” where possible.
2. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours. An emergency repair includes a water leak that cannot be contained.
3. Routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days. A leaking roof or minor roof repairs are classed as a routine repairs.
4. Certain works which require items to be manufactured may take longer. Other factors such as the requirement to erect scaffolding can add an unavoidable delay. Residents will be informed if this is the case.
5. It recognises that vulnerable residents may need extra consideration and support. Being vulnerable however does not automatically give a resident the right to a higher priority or quicker response to a repair.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process set out in its policy. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If further time is required at either stage, it will keep the resident informed.

Summary of events

On 7 April 2022 the resident reported an uncontainable leak coming into his hallway from the roof. A roofing contractor attended that same day. It is not clear what work, if any, was done on this occasion. The landlord subsequently noted on 14 April 2022 that scaffolding would be required to inspect the roof.
On 25 May 2022 the landlord arranged a job to make good the water damage to the hallway ceiling. A contractor attended this appointment on 7 June 2022 and advised the landlord that internal scaffolding would be required.
On 17 June 2022 the landlord noted internally that it had arranged the following works:
1. A roofer to attend on 24 June 2022.
2. Make good decoration in the hallway on 1 July 2022.
On 24 June 2022 a roofing contractor attended and sealed the flat roof joints and sealed around chimney pots.
On 29 June 2022 the landlord noted internally that the internal hallway work had been incorrectly marked as complete. It stated that this would be actioned urgently. It subsequently raised a job on 13 September 2022 to repaint the hallway ceiling.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord noted internally that the roof had been inspected and it required a new felt system.
That same day (4 November 2022) the landlord noted internally that the decoration works had not gone ahead as its operative had been unable to hire a scaffolding tower. It also noted that the resident had requested the whole ceiling to be stripped, boarded and painted. That same day the landlord noted that it had booked the works to take place on 15 November 2022.
On 15 November 2022 a contractor attended to complete the decoration works and the landlord recorded this as completed.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord noted internally that the water ingress was caused by defective asphalt to the roof. It stated that the roof needed to be inspected and overlay fitted.
The landlord raised a further job on 11 December 2022 to make good the water damage in the hallway and repaint the ceiling.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord recorded the works to the roof felt as complete.
On 19 December 2022 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. Since April 2022 he had requested that his hallway ceiling be repainted following the leak. This had been done in November 2022 but it was unsatisfactory. The leak had not been resolved and was spreading which had caused the ceiling wallpaper to come off.
2. Contractors had repainted his bathroom ceiling in November 2022 but this was peeling again.
3. His carpet had been ruined by the leak. It had cost him £1500 to purchase and would need to be replaced.
4. He was disabled and had teenage twins who suffered from asthma. He stated that the conditions, including the damp carpet, were affecting his children’s health.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 December 2022.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 3 January 2023 and advised that an operative had been booked to attend on 10 January 2023. The following day (4 January 2023) the landlord cancelled this appointment as it had incorrectly booked a plumber instead of a roofer. It arranged for a roofer to attend on 13 January 2023.
On 10 January 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. Following the report of the leak in April 2022 it had arranged for an operative to attend that same day. It was found that a roofing specialist would be required to inspect the roof. This was arranged that same month (April 2022) and it was determined that the roof felt required repair/renewal and that scaffolding would be required in order to do so. This roofing repair was completed in June 2022.
2. It subsequently raised a job in September 2022 to make good the damaged hallway ceiling. An operative attended on 20 September 2022 to do so but could not gain access.
3. The operative re-attended on 23 September 2022 and reported that there was water staining on the ceiling and that the ceiling paper had partially come away. The operative had advised the landlord that the ceiling would need to be inspected to determine if replastering was required.
4. A contractor attended in November 2022 to complete the works however it was not able to erect indoor scaffolding as it would need to be in place for at least 2 days and would block the resident’s access to the toilet.
5. A further roof inspection was carried out in November 2022 and the roof felt was renewed on 13 December 2022.
6. A new order was raised in December 2022 to investigate and remedy the water ingress into the hallway occurring in 3 locations. An appointment had been incorrectly made for a plumber to attend. This was rearranged to a roofer who would be attending on 13 January 2023.
7. Any decoration works to the hallway and bathroom ceilings would be re-addressed following the resolution of the leak.
8. It advised the resident on how to make an insurance claim against the landlord’s insurance for compensation for damage caused by the leak.
9. It acknowledged that the service the resident had received had fallen below what would normally be expected. It apologised for the misdiagnosis, damage to the property, the delay and inconvenience caused.
10. It offered £100 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble spent pursuing the matter as well as the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 13 January 2023 roofers attended to inspect the roof. The landlord advised the resident on 16 January 2023 that the roof required re-felting and that this would be arranged shortly.
On 3 February 2023 the resident advised the landlord that he was not happy with the complaint response. He stated that the compensation offered was unreasonable as his carpet had been ruined and works had not been completed (no evidence of the resident having pursued an insurance claim has been seen by this Service). He reiterated his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 21 February 2023 and asked for the complaint to be escalated.
On 1 March 2023 the landlord noted internally that although internal decoration would generally be the resident’s responsibility, it would carry this out due to the leak.
On 4 April 2023 a new felt system was installed to the roof. The landlord noted internally on 6 April 2023 that the resident had advised that the leak was still ongoing and that his walls were wet. The landlord requested that a roofer reattend.
On 12 April 2023 the resident contacted this Service as the landlord had not responded to his complaint at stage 2. He stated that the leak had been ongoing since April 2022 and he had 3 buckets on the stairs to catch the drips. He advised that he had a minor stroke so could not get up the stairs to go to bed or to the bathroom. He also advised that the damp was causing issues for his 2 asthmatic children. This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to respond at stage 2 by 19 April 2023.
On 14 April 2023 the landlord noted internally that there were some “metal trays” on the roof that had decayed and were causing the leaks. New trays had been fabricated however when the roofer had returned, another contractor had installed cabling that had been wrapped around the roof area, preventing the completion of the repair.
That same day (14 April 2023) the landlord responded at stage 2. It apologised for the delay in its response and stated as follows:
1. Following an investigation on 13 January 2023, its contractor had found that metal trays on the roof had decayed, causing the leaks. Scaffolding was required to complete this work and there had been an unavoidable delay in erecting this due to a backlog of requests.
2. The contractor was waiting for some cabling to be removed on the roof that had been wrapped around the area in question.
3. Once the roofing repairs had been completed it would arrange the internal scaffolding so that the decoration works could begin.
4. It reiterated its advice about making an insurance claim for any damage caused. It signposted the resident on how to do so.
5. It apologised for the ongoing delay in resolving the matter. It offered £150 compensation for inconvenience and distress. This was in addition to the £100 offered at Stage 1.
On 17 April 2023 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. He was dissatisfied with the offer of £250 compensation.
2. His wallpaper had been damaged.
3. There was a risk to his and his children’s health due to the fact the carpet was “continually soaked when it rains” and having to have buckets on the stairs. He stated that the buckets prevented him from accessing the upstairs of the property. Due to a previous stroke he could not climb over the buckets for risk of falling.
On 20 April 2023 the resident referred his complaint to this Service. He advised he was dissatisfied with the offer of compensation which would not cover the cost to replace his damaged carpets and walls. It did not account for the length of time the matter had been ongoing.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

The internal decoration works were completed on 9 September 2023. As this Service had not seen evidence of any further reports of ongoing issues with the roof or internal decoration since this point, it is reasonable to conclude that the issues were resolved.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord advised this Service that it had reviewed its offer of compensation and had concluded that the resident should be compensated for a period of 69 weeks for inconvenience. This covered the time between the first report and final completion. Its revised offer was £690 compensation in total. It also attached a copy of the insurance claim form it had sent to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted the resident requested compensation for damaged personal belongings and reported a potential impact on his and his children health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s response to the compensation claim, its handling of repairs and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household.

Response to reports of a leak and associated repairs

The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy in responding to the resident’s initial report of an uncontainable leak (7 April 2022) the same day. This was in line with its response timeframe for an emergency repair. It is not clear however if any temporary repair was carried out on that occasion. This is something the landlord should have had a record of. As such it could not demonstrate that it had made the repair safe.
It is noted that a subsequent repair to the roof (sealing joints) was carried out on 24 June 2022. This was 11 weeks after the leak was reported. This was substantially outside of the timeframe for a routine repairs of 20 days. It is noted that there was a delay with the landlord being able to source scaffolding however it did not show that it sought to keep the resident updated in respect of this delay.
Another inspection of the roof was carried out and the landlord noted on 4 November 2022 that new roof felt was required. The landlord’s stage 1 response, which stated that the issue with the felt had been identified in April 2022 was not supported by its repair records which showed that the issue with the felt was not identified until November 2022. It is not clear why this had not been identified during the initial inspection. This missed opportunity led to decoration works taking place on 15 November 2022 despite the source of the leak not having been repaired. This caused frustration to the resident when further damage was caused and this work had to be re-raised. In addition, inconvenience was caused by the multiple appointments made due to the landlord’s inability to permanently resolve the leak for a considerable period of time.
Works to the roof felt were completed on 13 December 2022 however a subsequent inspection on 13 January 2023 found that the roof needed to be re-felted. It is not clear if this work had been incorrectly marked as complete in December 2022 or if a new issue with the roof felt had been identified. New felt was installed on 4 April 2023 but again this did not resolve the leak. The cause of the leak was subsequently found to be caused by metal trays on the roof which had decayed. It is not clear why the earlier roof inspections had not identified this issue. It is also not clear when the metal trays were replaced however from the landlord’s correspondence this seems to have been done prior to the internal works in September 2023.
Although the completion date of the roofing works was not provided to this Service, the landlord acknowledged that it took 69 weeks for the works to be completed. This was significantly outside of its 20 day repair timeframe. The landlord offered a total of £250 compensation for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience via its complaints procedure.
When failures are identified, as in this case, 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
It is noted that the resident did not feel the compensation was sufficient given the damage caused to his carpet and walls. The landlord had explained to the resident that damage to the carpet would need to be considered via an insurance claim. It provided him with the information on how to make such a claim on 2 occasions during the internal complaints procedure however there is no evidence that the resident pursued such a claim.
When a failure has occurred it is good practice to consider compensation via the internal complaints procedure and put things right for the resident. In this case this would have been to complete repairs, make good any damage to the property and provide compensation for any losses and distress and inconvenience. The damage caused to the carpet from the leak occurred over a period of time, including after the landlord was made aware of repairs required to the roof. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to its insurer in respect of the initial damage caused, the subsequent water damage could have been lessened if the landlord had identified the cause of the leak and carried out the repair in a timely manner.
Following the involvement of this Service, the landlord re-evaluated its offer of compensation and did so based on the length of time it had taken to complete the works (it advised this had been 69 weeks). It increased its offer of compensation to £690 in total. It did not state how it had determined this figure although it appears to have been based on a figure of £10 per week that the repair had been outstanding. In reaching this figure the landlord did not demonstrate that it had given consideration to the impact the ongoing leaks had on the resident or that it had considered his reported vulnerabilities. The landlord should have acknowledged this and should have taken this into account when determining what compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.
In summary, the landlord failed to repair the leak and failed to complete the associated internal decorations in line with its repairs policy. Its offer of £690 compensation, which equated to £10 per week the matter had been ongoing, was not sufficient. The resident experienced ongoing leaks for over a year, he was caused inconvenience by way of multiple appointments including the unnecessary redecoration prior to the leak having been resolved. The landlord also failed to demonstrate consideration of the resident’s reported vulnerability when assessing the impact the situation had on him.
The resident reported to the landlord how the property condition issues were affecting he and his children. He explicitly referenced household vulnerabilities in this respect, including his mobility and his children having asthma. While this Service is unable to comment on any possible connection between property condition issues and an impact on household health, it is expected that landlord’s will take such reports seriously. This can be demonstrated in the following ways: ensuring that repair issues are resolved promptly, that interim measures can be put in place whilst works remain outstanding and, above all, that empathy for a vulnerable household is demonstrated through a landlords responses. In all the circumstances of this case however, it is not clear that the landlord met these standards.
Although the landlord directed the resident to its insurer, which was appropriate in respect of the initial damage, it could have done more to support the resident in making such a claim. It would have demonstrated good practice and a resident focused approach if it had considered compensation for the damaged carpet via its internal complaints procedure given the amount of time the carpet was exposed to the leak due to its inability to identify and resolve the cause.
In summary there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak and associated repairs given the delays and a lack of consideration for the household’s vulnerabilities. To acknowledge the impact caused to the resident over a significant period of time, compensation of £1190 has been ordered. This is inclusive of the landlord’s offer of £690. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where there has been a significant detriment over a protracted period.
An order has also been made for the landlord to revisit the insurance process if possible with the landlord taking a proactive role in clarifying how this process will progress and assisting the resident throughout.

Complaint handling

The landlord took 14 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. Whilst this was only 4 working days outside of its stage 1 complaint timescale, it did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay. In addition, it failed to keep the resident informed of this delay or the reasons for it. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code).
At stage 2, the landlord took 50 working days to respond. This was significantly outside of the timeframe in its complaints policy of 20 working days. It is noted that the resident had to contact it a number of times to request that his complaint be escalated to stage 2 and the landlord did not do so until this Service became involved. This was not appropriate. This caused frustration to the resident and delayed him being able to refer his complaint to this Service.
Although the landlord apologised for the delayed stage 2 response, it did not offer any redress, nor did it explain the delay or what it would do to learn from its complaint handling failure. This was not appropriate and was not in line with the Code which expects landlords to demonstrate learning from failings.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. Compensation of £150 has been ordered to acknowledge the frustration and distress caused to the resident by this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of a leak and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to repair the leak repair and complete internal decorations in line with its repairs policy. Its offer of compensation was not sufficient and did not take account of the impact on the vulnerable resident of the matter having been ongoing for over a year. The landlord could have gone further to assist the resident in respect of the damage caused to his carpet as a result of the ongoing leaks.
The landlord did not respond at either stage of its internal complaints process in line with its complaints policy. Both responses were delayed, with the stage 2 response only being provided following the involvement of this Service. Despite these delays the landlord offered no compensation to acknowledge the frustration caused by its failings. It did not demonstrate any learning from its complaint handling failures or take steps to prevent such failures from occurring in the future.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay £1340 compensation made up as follows:
  1. £1190 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the ongoing leak and repair issues. This is inclusive of the landlord’s offer of £690.
  2. Pay £150 compensation to acknowledge the impact of the complaint handling failures on the resident.
3. Revisit the insurance process if possible and take a proactive role in clarifying how this process will progress and assist the resident throughout. Should an insurance claim no longer be possible due to time limitations, the landlord to confirm this.
4. Review its records to ensure the resident’s vulnerabilities are recorded.