Wandsworth Council (202105230)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105230

Wandsworth Council

31 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 the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks from the roof and handling of roof repairs.
2. management and handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a local authority landlord. The resident’s lease began on 14 August 1989. The resident has no known vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord. However, in communications during the complaint process, the resident indicated experiencing difficulties with mental health.
The property is a 2-bedroom self-contained flat on the top floor of a 5-storey tower block, which is of a brick and concrete construction. The building has a metal corrugated pitched roof, which is constructed over an old flat roof, with loft space.
The landlord is contractually obliged under the lease to:
1. “at all times during the term, well and substantially repair, cleanse, uphold, support and maintain the exterior of the block”, including the roof, structural parts, all drains, gutters and downpipes
2. ensure the block is comprehensively insured against “loss or damage by fire and other risks”.
The landlord’s communications contain repairs terminology and technical information related to the resolution of the substantive complaint. To help with understanding, the following definitions are provided:
1. bakers hat: a cover over the chimney which protects against rain, snow and debris getting into the chimney
2. filet: triangle shaped wood placed near a chimney or wall, so rainwater can flow off a roof properly
3. flaunching: the sloping filet of cement or mortar embedding the base of a chimney pot
4. rivets: a short metal pin or bolt for holding together two plates of metal
5. metal ridge caps: running along the peak of a roof, these connect the two adjoining steel roof panels on either side of a roof seam

Relevant legislation, policies and procedures

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states:
1. stage 1 and stage 2 investigations are acknowledged within 2 working days
2. a stage 1 response is provided in 20 working days. However, if it cannot reply within that timescale, it will let the resident know the reason why
3. stage 2 reviews are responded to within 25 working days. However, if it cannot reply within that timescale, it will tell the resident why.
The landlord does not have a compensation policy, however has stated that any compensation is “administered in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (September 2022), as published on the Ombudsman’s website”.
The landlord’s website provides information on how to make a housing public liability claim. It states that “each public liability claim varies on a range of factors”. “Each claim is looked at on its own merits…if you are claiming for loss or damage to your property, or contents, deductions will be taken for wear and tear, depending upon the age of the items. It may be quicker and easier to claim on your own contents insurance policy, which is likely to be new for old cover”. “You will need to pay the contractors directly following completion of the works”.
The landlord’s repairs procedure states that the landlord is responsible for:
1. “repairs to the structure and exterior of tenants’ homes”
2. “maintaining communal areas, the block and, where appropriate, the estate”.
The landlord has provided 3 tables showing its target completion times for different types of repair, which are summarised as follows:
1. where there is a “danger to persons”, within 2 hours of notification
2. ‘emergency repairs’ such as burst pipes, within 1 working day
3. ‘right to repair defects’ such as “repairs to heating” or “water supply installations” within 3 or 7 working days (enhanced priority for older or disabled residents)
4. ‘important repairs’ such as “repairs to windows, doors and minor leaks”, within 20 working days
5. non-urgent ‘routine repairs’ such as planned repairs, within 60 working days
6. further category for work requiring completion within 254 working days, such as for “pest control”.
The Local Government and Housing Act 1988 requires the landlord to formulate its proposals for expenditure and income for its housing stock on an annual basis, for the following financial year. The landlord presents recommendations for approval to a committee of democratically appointed members on an annual basis, during January or February each year. However, final decision on budgets rests with the landlord’s Cabinet members at a subsequent meeting of Full Council, in March each year.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 September 2021, however has provided evidence which goes beyond this date. This investigation draws reference to actions and transactions subsequent to the internal complaint process related to the substantive issues of complaint.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states, “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the [landlord] as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arsing”. Although it is noted that there is a long history of water ingress reported by the resident, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress from 25 August 2020 onwards, which were considered during the landlord’s complaint process. Any reference to historical issues provides contextual background to the current complaint only.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states, “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT), deals with residential leasehold disputes. It can make determinations on liability to pay a service charge, including the appropriate level and amount of service charge recoverable by a landlord. The FTT can also decide if charges were reasonably incurred.

Summary of events

The resident reported historic episodes of water ingress stretching several decades, caused by issues with the roof and drainage infrastructure. The resident has confirmed that no formal complaints were raised over this period. This service has seen no records to indicate that there were any episodes of water ingress caused by issues with the roof or drainage infrastructure between June 2016 and 24 August 2020.
The landlord issued an order for works on 25 August 2020, following a “roof leak” causing water ingress into the property. The landlord instructed its contractor to carry out a “tempoary repair” to the flat or pitch roof and “provide written report on further works”. This service has not been provided with a copy of the contrators report, however a summary of follow on works involved: filling gaps; cracks and splits; sealing the roof with two coats of sealant; sheeting lead redress; removing defective flashing and replacing; securing loose lead apron flashings; pointing in cerment mortar. The job was completed on 2 September 2020.
The landlord issued a further order for roofing works, including scaffolding on 26 August 2020. The job was completed on 7 September 2020. On the same day, the landlord carried out a joint inspection of the roof with its contractor.
Following a new report of water ingress from the resident on 17 May 2021, the landlord’s contractor supplied and fitted “a bakers hat” to the chimney stack and carried out “flash banding” to seal cracks. The order was raised on 19 May 2021 and works were completed on 27 May 2021, which was within the contractor’s given target completion time.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 10 June 2021. The resident said:
1. the initial problem started in 2009 after a heavy downpour, which caused the roof to leak and resulted in damage to the kitchen ceiling, walls and flooring. Since then she had reported “extensive damage” each time it rained and her kitchen kept being flooded
2. after many inspections and temporary repairs, the problem had become worse. Continual water ingress had resulted in condensation and moisture build up in cupboards and within worktops causing them to warp. Moreover, there had been damage to the resident’s personal belongings, including electrical items. There was also a “mouldy odour” in the property
3. the ceilings and walls needed to be redecorated after each leak. The landlord’s advice was to make a claim, however this was not cost effective as the water ingress was continual
4. the latest water ingress was on 28 May 2021, which the landlord attributed to the “bakers hat on the chimney coming off”. The resident stated “what do I know about these things, but yet I have to understand that it is not [the landlord’s] fault
5. the resident mentioned being “bombarded by angry council tenants knocking and holding me responsible for flooding in their properties, which are all situated directly below me”. It was suggested that neighbours were “disgruntled” with the resident, despite directing them to the landlord
6. mice were finding their way into the flat, and had bitten into a 10Kg bag of rice, leaving droppings in the kitchen
7. that the landlord was only making temporary repairs to the roof, but the roof “clearly needs to be replaced and not patched in order to end the ingress problem, in order that I can return to normal living”
8. that the issue was causing stress and it was taking its toll on the resident’s health and personal life. She described having to leave work on multiple occasions at the onset of an unexpected downpour to lay out towels and buckets. This had resulted in her having to change employment repeatedly. She felt that the landlord was treating her “unfairly”, “in having to live under these conditions for many years through no fault of my own”
9. that although the complaint had been assigned, the landlord had not given any “assurance that they will come and look at the damage”. The landlord should put things right by fixing the roof and paying compensation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 17 June 2021, and said that it would respond by 9 July 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 June 2021, reporting another downpour of rain, which had caused water ingress into the kitchen. The resident said that the landlord had told her it “was not [its] fault, but the bakers hat on the roof”. She asked the landlord to investigate the problem and appealed the landlord to “do something”. The resident mentioned leaving the property, as her mental health had been affected and due to the mice. The landlord attended the property later that day. An internal memo following its inspection indicated that water had entered the kitchen from the flat roof, which the landlord noted had been decorated 6 weeks before. The landlord counted 6 different areas of water ingress through the kitchen ceiling, and noted other areas of historic damage in the living room.
The resident reported more water ingress on 18 June 2021, following another downpour, which caused a fridge freezer to break. The landlord instructed its contactor the same day to trace and investigate the roof leak, carry out a temporary repair and provide a written report outlining further works. The contractor was set a target of 29 June 2021. The works order does not indicate when this instruction was completed and this service has not seen a copy of the contrators report.
The landlord explained to the resident on 27 June 2021, how to make an insurance claim. The resident reported water ingress again the same evening by email, and expressed fear about going into the kitchen due to the electrics. The landlord spoke to the resident the same evening and advised against touching the electrics.
The landlord attended the property during the early hours of 28 June 2021, however in an internal memo stated that there was no reply. The landlord emailed the resident later the same day, advising that the insurance team would only be able to assist once the resident was ready to make a claim. The landlord reminded the resident on 29 June 2021, to contact its emergency control should further issues be experienced out of hours or over the weekend. Furthermore, it was considering remedial action and would respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint once it had investigated.
The landlord’s records indicate that its contractor attended the property on 1 July 2021, to further investigate and try to identify the source of ingress. The contractor reported that the “large round bakers hat” which had been renewed initially, was believed to have been the source of ingress “due to the large uncovered hole”. However, on further inspection, it had identified “voids and cracks between the flaunching and chimney pot fillets” and on “the flaunching itself”. The landlord returned on 2 July 2021, to “fill all visible voids and cracks and apply a coating of bitumen to top the stack covering the flaunching and fillets”. The intention was to “monitor how well the repair stood up to the next episode of heavy rainfall”, to establish if this was the source of the ingress”.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided on 12 July 2021, which upheld resident’s complaint. The landlord:
1. set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint, being the failure of the landlord to fully resolve water penetration from the roof since 2009. This had caused dampness and mould growth in the property, affected the flats below and caused the resident’s health to deteriorate due to stress
2. “accepted that the roof was coming to the end of its serviceable life span”. It explained that the roofing system was made up of metal corrugated sheets with metal ridge caps holding them in place. The sheets and caps were gripped together by rivets which had deteriorated and had become disconnected from the corrugated sheets and metal ridge caps, causing the roof system to lift. The landlord was unable to re-rivet the sheets and caps due to damage that would be caused to the area once it had weakened
3. explained that it had investigated the most recent ingress, which it’s contractor believed was “coming from the chimney stack & flaunching” directly above the property. It said, the large round bakers hat which was renewed was believed to have been the source of ingress due to the large uncovered hole. “The contractor has now filled in all visible voids and cracks as well applying a coating of bitumen to the top of the stack covering the flaunching and fillets”
4. noted that the resident had contacted the landlord on several occasions to report water ingress from the roof. It also noted that access to the roof area was problematic as there were no sizable loft hatches to get access, so the use of a scaffold or cherry picker was always required
5. accepted that its roofing contractor was “carrying out repairs which are only rectifying the problems short term and then there is a reoccurrence of ingress. To rectify the problem permanently, a roof renewal will be required”. It had completed a proforma to include the roof replacement on its cyclical programme. However, until those works had been programmed, it would continue to raise remedial repairs to the roof, although it could not advise when the roof would be replaced
6. apologised for the “clear distress” that had been caused
7. asked the resident to contact [a named individual], if there was further water ingress following the latest repair, so a further repair could be carried out swiftly. It suggested that it was “now a case of monitoring how well the repair stands up to the next heavy rainfall”
8. set out the recommendations and actions that would follow, which included:
  1. a referral to its major works team to incorporate the roof onto the cyclical programme
  2. the landlord to monitor and deal with any reported roof leaks swiftly to mitigate loss until the roof renewal was carried out
  3. an inspection of the roof had been carried out and all noted defects had been repaired
9. said to learn from the complaint, it would more closely monitor reoccurring orders, which indicate a larger problem, thereby ensuring that referrals to its major works team are made sooner.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 July 2021, asking for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The resident:
1. said despite the decision to uphold the stage 1 complaint, she remained disappointed with how the landlord had handled the current and all previous complaints dating back to 2009. Although it had “admitted liability and acknowledged my experiences”, the landlord had still failed “to provide any reassurance of when the ongoing leak will permanently fixed”. The resident said the property was damaged and vermin infested, which was an additional matter of concern.
2. explained that she had been “woken up in the middle of night several times, due to flooding and water rushing into my home. I have also had to rush home from family functions, work or planned events concerned my home would be flooded”.
3. pointed out that her property “should be a place of refuge and safety; however, my experience has been distressing and traumatic”. “This longstanding experience has caused me great emotional and psychological distress”. “I experience regular panic attacks, loss of sleep and have developed anxiety at the thought of rain or strong winds”
4. said that a number of claims for damages had been submitted to the landlord, however it had never considered the resident’s emotional health or well-being. Neither had it reimbursed the full cost of damages incurred.
5. urged the landlord to understand how the ongoing inconvenience had impacted the resident’s mental health and day to day living. The resident asked the landlord to imagine not being able to invite friends or family to the property for several years, and having personal and heartfelt items destroyed, some of which were irreplaceable
6. the landlord had “displayed negligence by refusing to show understanding or compassion”. The resident felt “unheard”, with ongoing complaints yet to be resolved. The resident said that her “basic human rights had been breached” and she believed that she was being “indirectly discriminated”. The resident said that the landlord had “failed to provide a basic duty of care over several years”, yet had “financially abused” her as a long serving leaseholder
7. pointed out that monthly service charge payments were being made to the landlord, despite of the landlord failures. The resident maintained that in receiving these payments, the landlord had not fulfilled its contractual obligations to her as a leaseholder
8. requested compensation for “traumatic and emotional distress, failure to comply with contractual obligation to provide effective service, and overall financial loss dating to 2009”
9. asked who the responsible person was in charge of safety roof checks and for an overview of the “internal operational practice”. She said in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had an obligation to carry out basic repairs. However, expressed awareness that “these repairs should also be processed in a timely manner with regular reviews in person, via the housing building inspector”
10. asked the landlord to confirm if the repair fell under the right to repair scheme, to discuss a suitable compensation package prior to exploring legal action, and confirm a final date for completion of the leaking roof.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 29 July 2021. On 30 July 2021, the landlord advised that it would respond to the resident by 18 August 2021.
An internal memo from 7 August 2021, indicates that the resident phoned the landlord following another leak. The landlord attended the property the same evening. The inspector tried to check the attic but was unable to gain access, so requested a follow up inspection and repair to remedy the leak. On 8 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to report water ingress following adverse weather conditions “from the 6 August 2021 and ongoing”. The resident said that the ingress had moved to the 2 bedrooms, soaking the bed and requiring the resident to cancel plans for the weekend to concentrate on the property. The resident said that she intended to make another claim and complaint.
The landlord instucted its contractor on 10 August 2021, to: provide plant, labour and a ladder to enable a joint inspection; carry out a temporary repair of the roof and provide a written report for further works; rake out defective remnants of expansion joint and reseal; fill gaps cracks and splits, to apply 2 coats of sealer. The works were completed on 18 August 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2021. It advised that it needed more time to provide its complaint response and extended the deadline to 8 September 2021.
The landlord completed a proforma on 31 August 2021, to start the process for securing replacement of the roof, which it stated needed “expediting”.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 8 September 2021, further extending the deadline to 15 September 2021. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 September 2021, partially upholding the resident’s complaint. In its response, the landlord:
1. set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint. It noted the resident’s concern that the water ingress issue might not be resolved in the near future
2. noted that an insurance claim had been made in 2018, following a previous roof leak, which had been settled. Repairs undertaken at that time were successful, but further water ingress was reported in August 2020. Some roof works had been carried out since that time, but these had not been successful in preventing further water ingress
3. noted that the resident remained disappointed with how it had handled complaints dating back to 2009. It understood the resident’s frustration about repeated roof leaks, but felt previous complaints were managed appropriately
4. said that technical issues with the construction of the roof had made it difficult to carry out an effective and lasting repair. In recognition of this, a request had been made to have the roof renewed
5. noted that the most recent incident of water ingress was on 6 August 2021, following which further roof repairs were carried out during the week commencing 23 August 2021. It hoped these repairs would prevent further water ingress, pending renewal. Nevertheless, it would monitor the matter closely and would respond promptly to any further reports of water ingress.
6. It appreciated “the obvious strain that this problem is causing”, and offered an apology for the problems experienced
7. acknowledged that the resident felt it had been negligent in managing her concerns, but did not agree that it had shown no understanding or compassion. It had tried to resolve the problem, but accepted that roof leaks had affected the resident’s “enjoyment of the property”
8. did not accept that it had “indirectly discriminated” against the resident or had “breached” human rights. It said its repair records showed orders had been issued following reports of water ingress. Necessary repairs had then been completed, but further roof leaks had occurred at a later date
9. understood that the resident intended to make a further insurance claim and promised to respond quickly when its insurer asked for more information
10. acknowledged the resident’s request for compensation “for traumatic and emotional distress” and “financial losses dating back from 2009”. It noted that the resident had already received a level of financial compensation through a successful insurance claim made in 2018. As it was unclear on the level of compensation being sought, the resident was asked to further advise a named officer, so the request could be considered further
11. had not previously been aware of a vermin infestation. It would raise a works order to inspect and treat the communal area if the resident could provide more information. However, it would not be able to treat pests within the resident’s property, as this would be her responsibility
12. said that it intended to renew the roof, but could not give a meaningful target date for this work. Before any work could be carried out, it needed to engage a consultant, create a specification of works, carry out a competitive tender process, complete a statutory consultation with leaseholders and appoint a contractor. A [named individual] would advise when the work had been programmed
13. responded to the resident’s questions, as follows:
  1. the case did not fall under the right to repair scheme
  2. “Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 does not require regular reviews by a housing building inspector”, although it does require it to carry out repairs that fall under its remit within a timely manner
  3. it “is not required to carry out pre-emptive roof checks and as such there is no key person that is responsible for this”
  4. it was unclear what the resident meant by “internal operational practices”, but if the resident could provide further clarification it would send any information it held
14. concluded that the stage 1 response had provided an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns, but appreciated there had been a further roof leak and further roof repairs had been undertaken. It advised that “any previous insurance claims that you have made, and intend to make, would need to be considered in the context of any offer of compensation that may be made”.

Actions of note subsequent to completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process

The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 25 October 2021. The resident:
1. felt that the landlord had “dismissed” her “traumatic experience for years”. She felt “bullied and abused”, “treated unfairly” and said it had “not offered or shown any form of willing to address my experiences”
2. said that the landlord had failed to reassure her about its next steps or when the roof would be replaced. She held the landlord accountable for the vermin infestation and requested that it arrange pest control at no additional cost
3. indicated that she was seeking legal advice and an intention to make a further insurance claim. She stressed that previous insurance claims had left her “out of pocket”. She had rented and purchased dehumidifiers to tackle the smell of damp in the property, and repeatedly had to redecorate
4. described visible black stains of damp caused by water damage on the walls and damage to furniture. Shame and embarrassment had caused her to lose contact with friends and family. Her son who had leaning difficulties, had not been able to visit for over 15 years
5. she requested £50,000 compensation to recognise the lack of a permanent fix for the leak; mental health battles; anxiety and fear triggered by the thought of rainy weather; having to leave her home due to water damage and damp; repeatedly dealing with a flooded flat without assistance; financial losses incurred
6. she also asked the landlord to “refund 50% of service charges dating back to 1989”, because the landlord had accepted payments but had not fixed the ongoing water leak or damage to her property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s letter on 25 October 2021, and said that the service area would issue a response. It indicated in a follow up letter on 4 November 2021 (entitled “your supplementary stage 2 complaint review of your complaint regarding: repairs to the roof of your property”), that it aimed to respond by 15 November 2021. The landlord’s chief executive later wrote to the resident on 12 November 2021, restating that a response would be provided by the service area.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 28 January 2022. On 1 February 2021, the landlord told the resident that its internal complaint process had been exhausted and restated that a response would be provided by the service area. It also said that, “it was agreed that the response to your compensation request did not need a supplementary stage 2 response”, which had been indicated within a previous communication from the chief executive.
The landlord has provided evidence that it incorporated the roof replacement works within its proposed Housing Revenue Account budget for the financial year 2022-23. The proposals were presented to the landlord’s Housing and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 31 January 2022, who approved recommendations for approval at Cabinet.
The landlord responded to the resident’s request for compensation on 11 March 2022. It apologised for “the delay in assessing a quantum for [the resident’s] loss”. It:
1. accepted that there was a history of water ingress and this had affected the resident’s mental wellbeing, resulting in anxiousness when it rained
2. reiterated difficulties ensuring the roof was watertight. It accepted that the roof had become increasingly difficult to maintain and hoped the latest repair would keep the roof watertight until the roof was renewed in 2022-23
3. promised to keep the resident informed “at key stages to give assurance that the programme was moving forward”, and appointed a single point of contact
4. was unaware of reported issues with vermin, but would arrange an inspection and treatment at no cost
5. noted settlement of 5 related insurance claims between 1993 and 2020, with 2 outstanding claims to be processed. It said, “once settled you will not be in a financially worse position, as if the incident had not occurred based on your claims”
6. noted that the resident wanted a refund of service charges. In response it explained the composition of the resident’s service charges
7. noted that the resident had requested compensation for “traumatic and emotional distress”, for which it offered £500. It offered a further £50, in recognition of its delay providing a response.
The resident told the landlord on 24 October 2022, that she had been woken again to water dripping from the roof. The landlord states that it responded by issuing a temporary repair on 2 November 2022.
The resident has since told this service that the roof had still not been replaced. The landlord had not kept the resident updated as promised. To the resident’s knowledge, neither had the landlord arranged pest control
A review of the landlord’s website indicates that the roof is due to be renewed in 2023-24. The landlord has told this service, that it anticipates the roof replacement will begin in March 2024. It said that it does “not generally carry out condition monitoring unless insurance is involved. The monitoring of the temporary repair is not actively monitored as it relies on the residents advising if there is a problem”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks from the roof and handling of roof repairs

This service acknowledges that the resident states she experienced distress as a result of repeated water ingress into the property, which resulted in recurring flooding, damage to the resident’s property and personal belongings, as well as damp and mould.
It is not disputed that the landlord had a contractual obligation under the terms of the lease, to carry out an investigation and any related works upon being alerted to an issue with the roof.
In total there were 7 incidents of water ingress following rainfall between August 2020 and November 2022. During this time the landlord carried out multiple inspections and attempted 7 repairs to the roof before a successful temporary repair was carried out.
In view of the landlord’s difficulties to identify the cause of water ingress and keep the roof watertight, this service would have expected the landlord to have offered the resident some dehumidifiers and considered other practical ways to support her. This service has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered this, which was unreasonable. Such an approach may have helped the landlord foster a more positive and empathic relationship with the resident, who described feeling “unheard” and of being “treated unfairly”. The impact on the resident was a loss of trust, as well as increased levels of distress, frustration, and time and trouble.
It is accepted that it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases repeated efforts may be needed before the matter is fully resolved. As such this alone would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. It was appropriate that the landlord sought to find a permanent resolution through a wider programme of cyclical works, in view of the repetitive and escalating nature of the water ingress.
However, in was unreasonable that the landlord did not carry out controlled water testing (or stress testing), to satisfy itself of the weatherproofing of temporary repairs carried out. Its intention to “establish the source of the leak”, by “monitoring how well the repair stood up to the next episode of heavy rainfall” was inappropriate, in view of the history of water ingress and continued inconvenience to the resident. Notwithstanding the potential for further damage to the property, the resident was left uncertain and in a state of continued and elevated anxiousness.
In addition, the landlord did not proactively monitor the temporary repair or the condition of the roof pending its replacement. While this may not have been the landlord’s usual practice, this would have been a proportionate approach considering the circumstances of the case. A 6 or 12 month visual inspection of the roof with a cherry picker, would have been a relatively inexpensive way to monitor the efficacy of its temporary repairs. When couple with the lack of stress testing, the landlord’s approach was inadequate and created an over reliance on the resident reporting issues and periods of significant rainfall.
The landlord did give an undertaking that it would monitor and deal with new roof leaks swiftly to mitigate further loss, pending full roof replacement. However, the landlord should also have reassured the resident that it would keep the situation under review and would reconsider its approach in the event of a further leaks. This service has seen no evidence that this happened, which left the resident in an uncertain position.
Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases to an effective resolution, with an emphasis on ensuring that resident’s are kept informed, feel matters are being treated seriously and are progressing. This is particularly the case where reactive repairs evolve into planned works. While the landlord promised to keep the resident informed at “key stages to give assurance that the programme was moving forward”, there was and continues to be an absence of proactive communication or updates, which was inappropriate.
The landlord had a responsibility to proactively inform the resident of any deviation from its major works programme. A lack of meaningful communication left the resident uncertain as to when a permanent solution would be delivered. This would have been particularly distressing for the resident given the continued effect on her living conditions, personal life, relationships and mental wellbeing.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks from the roof and handling of roof repairs.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaint

It is not in dispute that there was an extensive history of water ingress into the property from the roof, prior to the resident raising a formal complaint on 10 June 2021. The resident explained the significant impact this was having on her living conditions, personal life, and mental health and wellbeing. She asked the landlord to put things right by fixing the roof and paying compensation.
In line with the 2020 Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord confirmed its understanding of the resident’s complaint and the outcomes being sought in its stage 1 response. The landlord’s response was positive in that it apologised for the resident’s “clear distress”, accepted that the roof was coming to the end of its serviceable life span, explained the actions that it intended to take to remedy the substantive complaint, and showed learnings taken from the case. However, in recognising the resident’s “clear distress” it was inappropriate that its action plan did not specify a timeline, with target completion dates. Such an approach would have created clarity for the resident and helped to manage expectations.
The resident indicated in her stage 1 complaint, little understanding of the landlord’s use of technical language about repairs carried out to the roof, stating “what do I know about things”. The landlord’s continued use of technical language within subsequent communications was inconsistent with the Code, which states that landlord’s “shall use plain language that is appropriate to the resident”.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaint response target timescales were longer than the timescales set out in the Code. It is noted that following a determination made on a different case, the landlord was ordered by this service to refresh its self-assessment against the Code. The latest self-assessment indicates that the landlord has brought its complaint response times in line with the Code with effect from April 2023. However, the landlord’s website has not yet been updated to reflect those changes and its published complaints policy has not been amended. Nor has the landlord published its latest self-assessment against the Code on its website, which is a requirement under the Ombudsman’s 2022 Complaint Handling Code.
Notwithstanding the above, the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were delivered outside of the landlord’s own response times. While the landlord did inform the resident that it needed more time to investigate there is no evidence that this extension was agreed by the resident. This is an expectation under the Code. Delays in complaint handling were likely to have caused the resident added frustration. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy was silent on the additional time permitted for extensions, however its latest self-assessment against the Code indicates that it is now in compliance.
The landlord did not acknowledge or address the resident’s concerns about mice getting into the property, or consider the resident’s request for compensation within its stage 1 response. This would have caused added inconvenience and frustration to the resident, as well as further delaying the dispute resolution process.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was more comprehensive and did address all of the points raised by the resident in her letter of escalation. The landlord gave an undertaking concerning pest control and asked for further clarification from the resident on her request for compensation. The landlord’s response gave more insight into the procedure required before the roof replacement could begin. However, its continued reluctance to share indicative timescales for completion of works failed to reassure the resident about its next steps. This would have been particularly frustrating for the resident, who remained reliant on the temporary repair holding, or the landlord responding quickly in the event of further leaks arising.
It is best practice for landlord’s to send complaint responses when the answer to a complaint is known, rather than when outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. However outstanding actions must be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident. This service has not seen evidence to indicate that outstanding actions were tracked or that regular updates were given to the resident, which was inappropriate and led to the resident’s increased frustration.
The resident first requested compensation as a remedy in her stage 1 complaint on 10 June 2021. However, the landlord unreasonably delayed making a decision about this until 11 March 2022 (193 working days later), which was unfair and increased the resident’s frustration.
Additionally, the landlord’s process for considering compensation following issue of its stage 2 response was confusing. The landlord first indicated that it would consider compensation as part of a “supplementary stage 2 review”. After chasing the landlord for response (3 months later), the landlord told the resident that it “agreed” a supplementary stage 2 response was not required, which had been communicated to the resident on 12 November 2021. It is the view of this service, that the landlord’s communication was not sufficiently clear that the resident’s request for compensation was being dealt with outside of its complaints policy. This was poor complaint handling.
This service observed an over reliance by the landlord, on the resident making multiple insurance claims. While this was an available remedy, insurance claims are not always a suitable vehicle to provide a remedy to distress or inconvenience. Their purpose is to recompense for unforeseen events, and are not intended as a method to remedy ongoing repair needs. Despite the landlord’s assertion that “once settled you will not be in a financially worse position, as if the incident had not occurred”, the resident has explained that she had consistently been left “out of pocket”, after deductions made by the landlord’s insurer.
The resident asked for £50,000 in compensation and reimbursement of 50% of service charges, backdated to the start of her lease. This service has considered the likely level of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to identified failures on the landlord’s part, and whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. While 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 had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. If the resident wishes to seek the recovery of any costs or damages incurred, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice. Furthermore, the appropriate body to consider complaints about the level of a service charge is the FTT.
In this case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted fairly and tried to put things right by accepting failings, acknowledging the resident’s “emotional distress”, apologising, committing to learn from outcomes, and in working towards a permanent solution to resolve the substantive complaint. The landlord offered £500 in recognition of the resident’s emotional distress and £50 for its delay in providing its decision about compensation. However, this service does not consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to be proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience described by the resident. The resident reports experiencing significant impact, which included (not an exhaustive list) anxiety and fear at the thought of inclement weather; embarrassment and shame due to resultant damp and mould causing the resident to lose contact with friends and family; increased time and effort responding to repeated episodes of water ingress.
When considered cumulatively there was maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks from the roof and handling of roof repairs
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not show that it considered practical ways to support the resident following repeated episodes of water ingress. The landlord committed to dealing with future roof leaks swiftly, pending a full roof replacement. However, it did not satisfy itself of the weatherproofing of temporary repairs carried out through stress testing. Neither did it proactively monitor the condition of the roof or the continued efficacy of temporary repairs, which may have prevented further incidents of water ingress. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide regular or proactive updates to the resident on the progress of the roof replacement.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all of the points raised by the resident. The landlord did not seek to present technical repairs information in a way that the resident could understand. The resident was prevented from escalating her complaint to this service, as she was unclear when the landlord’s internal complaint procedure had ended. By omitting to provide timescales for action in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord did not adequately manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord did not show that it was keeping track of outstanding actions. There was an over reliance on the use of insurance claims as a remedy. The landlord unreasonably delayed making an offer of compensation, which in the opinion of this service was not proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Orders:

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £1,250 to the resident, which has been determined in the line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £1,000 in compensation, in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks from the roof and handling of roof repairs. This is reduced to £500, if the landlord has already paid £500 in compensation previously offered;
2. £250 compensation, in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble, caused by failures in complaint handling;
The landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. provide a full written update to the resident, on the current position with the roof replacement. The landlord must include an action plan, showing the remaining steps the landlord must take before the roof replacement works can commence, with indicative timescales;
3. confirm the date that it carried out pest control, given its previous undertaking in this regard. If no pest control was carried out, the landlord must endeavour to ascertain whether a pest control issue remains. The landlord must advise the resident of its intentions and give an approximate timeline if further pest control is required;
4. publish on its website, its latest self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and its updated complaints policy;
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review of the leaning in this case and advise this service of its intentions. This review must include as a minimum:
1. a review of the landlord’s complaint handling in this case and the matters surfaced in relation to:
  1. the appropriateness of insurance claims as a remedy
  2. the proportionality of compensation offered where there had been failings
  3. use of technical language within communications
2. a review of the landlord’s internal guidance on closing complaints, where there are outstanding actions. The landlord should consider how it ensures outstanding matters are tracked and resolved following complaint closure;
3. a review of the landlord’s communication processes. In particular, such a review must consider how residents are best kept informed where responsive repairs evolve into planned works.
The landlord must bring into its operations any identified improvements within 3 months of the date of this report.

Recommendations:

The landlord should consider whether its reliance on residents to report recurrent repairs issues remains fit for purpose, particularly in light of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
The landlord should write to this service to confirm its intention in relation to this recommendation within 6 weeks of the date of this report.