West Kent Housing Association (202207643)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207643

West Kent Housing Association

14 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 handling of remedial repairs to the roof of the block and electrical assessment of the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a joint leaseholder of a two bedroom, third floor flat. He lives in the flat with his wife and children. The underlease was originally granted by the landlord on 7 December 2007 for a term of 125 years. The leasehold interest was subsequently assigned to the resident on 23 January 2015.
The landlord is the head leaseholder and it was granted a 999 year lease of the building on 25 March 2007by the freeholder. The roof of the building was not demised (transferred) to the landlord and remains the responsibility of the freeholder.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

Under the terms of the head lease, the freeholder is responsible to maintain in good and substantial condition, repair, redecorate, and renew:
1. The roofs and main structure of the building; including the foundations.
Under the terms of the underlease, the resident must keep clean and in good and substantial repair and condition:
1. The interior of the premises and the interior faces (including plaster and other internal covering or lining and any floorboards, tiling and screeding) of the walls, ceilings and floors of the premises.
2. Gas and electrical apparatus of the premises.
3. All pipes, drains and wires which are in the premises and are enjoyed or used only for the premises and not for other premises in the building.
The landlord’s website provides information to shared owners and leaseholders. It says:
1. A lease is a contract between the parties defining who is responsible for which repairs. Generally, as a homeowner, residents must keep their home in a good state of repair. Residents are responsible for the internal repairs within their home and the safety of gas and electric fittings.
2. If the resident lives in a flat and the landlord is the freeholder, it will keep the structure, common parts and the outside of the flats in good repair. In some cases, a managing agent for another freeholder may be responsible for repairs.
3. For repairs within the resident’s home that fall under their responsibility, the resident should arrange for a qualified contractor to carry out the work and the resident will be responsible for the cost.
4. In certain situations, such as a serious leak that is causing damage to other properties, or where there is a health and safety risk, it may ask the resident to carry out the repair immediately. If this is not possible, it may arrange for a contractor to carry out the work and charge the resident for any costs incurred.
The landlord operates a two stage formal complaints procedure. Stage one complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage two complaints are responded to within 20 workings days.
The landlord’s housing options policy says that it:
1. Will rely on the lease and any statutory obligations it has if leaseholders or shared owners need to move out of their home.
2. Will ensure it consults and keeps in contact with leaseholders and shared owners.
3. May consider providing alternative accommodation if it has been negligent or if doing so may help the progress of essential works, such as redevelopment or repairs it is responsible for.

Summary of events

The resident first reported the leaking roof to the landlord in June 2019. Following delays due to a change of freeholder, and the freeholder’s failure to cooperate with the landlord, the roof was eventually repaired in August 2020. Once the repair was complete, the resident made a buildings insurance claim through the landlord’s policy and his ceiling was repaired. The resident was subject to a £100 policy excess fee.
The leak reoccurred in October 2020. However, it was much worse than it had been previously. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 October 2020 and raised concerns that the water from the leak had got into the electrics. The resident expressed concern about the safety of his flat and the rest of the block. The landlord told the resident that it was not responsible for the roof repair and that he should contact the freeholder directly. When the resident complained that it was the landlord’s responsibility to contact the freeholder, it contacted both the freeholder and its legal team to ask how to proceed in this situation.
On 21 October 2020, the landlord asked the resident whether the freeholder had completed the roof repair over the weekend. The resident told the landlord that he did not hear or see anyone carrying out a roof repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 December 2020 to inform it that the leak was not repaired and that it was still causing damage to his property. The landlord informed the resident that he must contact the freeholder directly.
On 11 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for its help in resolving the issue with the leaking roof. The landlord told the resident that the freeholder was no longer communicating, and so it was going to repair the roof itself. The landlord carried out the repair on 4 March 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 June 2021 as the roof was still leaking. On 21 June 2021, the landlord confirmed that its contractors would attend on 2 July 2021 to complete a repair. The resident asked the landlord if it would carry out a roof survey to determine the core issue as he was unhappy that a further patch repair had been completed.
On 7 July 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the repair had failed again. The landlord responded and said that a joint inspection would need to be completed with the freeholder and that this would be difficult to achieve as the freeholder was not cooperative.
On 13 July 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed that it had inspected the roof on 12 July 2021 with the freeholder. A slight crack to the existing protective barrier to the box guttering had been found. The landlord said that it had issued a works order for the repair and once it had a confirmed date for the works, it would let the resident know. The landlord attempted a further repair to the roof on 19 July 2021.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 July 2021 to check whether there had been any further water ingress following the repair. The resident confirmed on 27 July 2021 that it looked as though the repair had worked, however, to be certain he would need to paint the ceiling.
On 4 October 2021, the resident informed that landlord that the roof was leaking again. The landlord said a job had been raised for its contractor to inspect and carry out the required roof repairs. The landlord’s contractor attended to patch repair the roof on 14 October 2021.
The resident informed the landlord on 15 October 2021 that he was concerned about the safety of the electrical wiring in his flat because the leak could have affected his ceiling light and wall sockets. The landlord agreed to arrange for an electrician to attend to carry out an electrical check.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 October 2021 as he was unhappy with the service provided. He said:
1. He appreciated the landlord arranging for an electrician to inspect the safety of his electrical wiring.
2. The leak had been causing problems for some time. It had been repaired four or five times. After it was repaired the first time in August 2020, he paid £100 excess and made a building insurance claim to get the ceiling repaired. Not long after it was repaired the roof leaked again. Since then, it had been fixed three times. Every time it leaked, it caused more damage.
3. He wanted his ceiling fixed but he felt that to make another insurance claim and pay a further £100 or repair it at his own expense was unfair.
The landlord logged a stage one complaint and sent the resident an acknowledgement email on 19 October 2021. It confirmed that the response would be issued within 10 working days by 2 November 2021. The landlord also confirmed that it had arranged for an electrical check of the resident’s property.
The resident informed the landlord that the roof was still leaking on 21 October 2021.
In an internal email on 25 October 2021, following an inspection, the landlord noted:
1. The roof structure was metal covered with concealed gullies and rainwater outlets. On each occasion that the roofers had attended, the problem had been pushed to another part of the roof/ceiling area. This had resulted in the plasterboard becoming water stained, weakened and holes appearing.
2. The roof design made it difficult to pinpoint exactly where the rainwater was getting into the building. It was also possible for rainwater to gain access above a different flat area and run into the resident’s flat.
3. It was a three storey building. There was no edge protection when gaining access to the roof and any attempt to climb out onto the roof would require two people as a minimum requirement.
4. The three flats near to the resident’s flat had no issues with rainwater penetration.
The electrical inspection of the resident’s property was carried out on 27 October 2021. As the electrician could not guarantee the safety of the electrical wiring, the ceiling light in the affected bedroom was disconnected.
On 28 October 2021, during a telephone conversation with the resident, the landlord said that once the roof was repaired it would pay the excess on his contents insurance and would pay £50 compensation. The resident told the landlord that he did not have contents insurance, however he had previously claimed on the block buildings insurance.
In an internal email dated 1 November 2021, the landlord said that any coatings applied to the roof would likely be short lived as the roof structure was metal sheet bolted to a subframe. The seals were, in all probability, wearing and unless the issue with rainwater sitting in the box gutters was addressed, at times of strong winds and heavy rain, water was likely to breach the gaskets where the metal sheet roof covering abuts the box valley gutter. It concluded that this type of roof design would never be an easy fix. The landlord contacted the freeholder on the same day for an update on when the roof repairs would be completed.
Following the outcome of the electrical inspection, the landlord informed the resident on 3 November 2021 that he must move out of his property and into temporary accommodation. This was because it could not guarantee the safety of the resident’s family and property. The landlord had identified a suitable property that was available within the same block.
On 4 November 2021, the resident refused the landlord’s offer of alternative accommodation. He asked for a formal request to vacate and surrender his property to the landlord and for details of the landlord’s buildings insurance. He said that he would seek legal advice from a solicitor once he had received the requested information.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 November 2021. It confirmed in writing that, following an inspection by an electrician and a survey of the roof, it was not able to guarantee the safety of the electrics should the roof leak again. Until the issue was resolved with the freeholder, and to guarantee the resident’s safety, it had offered to move the resident and his family into an alternative property within the same block. The landlord also asked the resident to confirm the documents that he wanted to see before proceeding.
The resident responded on 9 November 2021. He said that he did not want to move out of the property unless it was necessary as he had already suffered a loss as he had been unable to use the main bedroom. He said that he would suffer further loss if he moved to alternative accommodation as he would be unable to remortgage or sell the property. The resident said that he was certain that there was a provision in his lease which stated, “In the event of repair beyond the control of the Landlord and/or Leaseholder, the leaseholder will surrender the lease to the Landlord” and he would be seeking legal advice before making any further decisions.
The landlord responded to the resident on 10 November 2021 and confirmed that it had been aware of the leak and it had made numerous attempts to compel the freeholder to fix it. It said that when it was apparent that the freeholder was not complying, it made its own attempts to fix the leak. It said that its contractors had confirmed that the works needed to the roof were more extensive than initially thought and so they were taking legal action against the freeholder, which could take some time. The landlord also said that, as a leaseholder, it was the resident’s responsibility to organise an electrical check following a leak and it had arranged this as a gesture of goodwill. As it was aware of the risk, it had offered a temporary decant until the leak was resolved. It further advised that the resident could appoint his own electrician and remove the ceilings to make a further assessment of the safety of the electrics should he wish to. However, it urged the resident to consider the temporary move until the leak was fixed. The landlord said that it was looking into the clause he had highlighted in his previous email and what that might mean in terms of surrender of his lease. It also urged the resident to seek his own legal advice so that he was better informed.
The resident informed the landlord on 12 November 2021 that the decant property was unacceptable and he suggested that the landlord urgently arrange to repair the leak and recover the cost from the freeholder.
On 15 November 2021, the landlord’s solicitors wrote to the freeholder and advised them of the problems associated with the persistent leaks from the roof into the resident’s property and of the particularly significant leak that had occurred. The letter further advised the freeholders of their responsibility under the lease and requested that immediate steps be taken to remedy the roof defects. It added that, in the event of a failure to do so, proceedings seeking an injunction would be commenced.
On the same day, the landlord’s solicitors sent the resident a letter. It said:
1. The roof belonged to the freeholders of the building and it was their responsibility to repair it.
2. They had written to the freeholders reminding them of their obligations and pointing out that if they did not urgently repair the roof, the landlord could take action against them.
3. The landlord had arranged for the resident to be rehoused temporarily due to concerns that his property was not safe because of potential problems with the electricity supply.
4. The landlord appreciated the inconvenience of having to move and would assist as best it could and it would prefer that this was done by agreement rather than asking the court to order the resident to move.
The freeholder’s managing agent responded to the solicitors’ letter on 17 November 2021. He disputed that it was the freeholder’s responsibility and alleged that the landlord had confirmed it would take responsibility for the roof.
On 18 November 2021, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. It did not own the external part of the building and it had asked the freeholder to repair the roof. It had in the past completed works on the roof, however, the repair was more complicated than was originally thought. It had asked the freeholder to fix the roof, but they had refused. It had spoken with its in house lawyer to take legal action, but that could take some time.
2. It had agreed that once the roof was repaired, it would pay the excess on the insurance to fix the resident’s ceiling.
3. As a gesture of goodwill, it had arranged for an electrician to attend and complete an electrical safety test. The electrician isolated the bedroom light and advised that if it was to rain, he was unable to guarantee the safety of other electrics. As it had a duty of care, it asked the resident to move home until the works to the roof were complete and the electrics were safe. It had offered the resident another property within the same block but the resident had refused this.
4. It would provide the resident with the requested documents in relation to his lease and buildings insurance.
5. The resident’s request for the landlord to buy back his property had been sent to the landlord’s executive team, who would make a decision.
6. It had created an action plan in relation to outstanding actions and it would provide the resident with a fortnightly update on its progress.
7. Action plan
  1. Buyback to be considered by executive team by 1 December 2021.
  2. Review of lease by 1 December 2021.
  3. Review of buildings insurance by 1 December 2021
  4. Letter regarding moving home by 1 December 2021
  5. Legal action on freeholder by 1 December 2021
8. It was sorry that it had not been able to provide a permanent fix to the roof yet. The issues in the case were complex and not easy to resolve. It remained committed to provide a permanent fix and it would work through the action plan to enable it to complete the works.
On 26 November 2021, the resident informed the landlord that he had instructed solicitors and would be in contact once he had received advice.
The landlord informed the resident on 14 December 2021 that it had passed the case to its solicitors and that its solicitors had sent out correspondence to the freeholder. It also said:
1. It understood that the freeholder was in the process of appointing his own solicitor.
2. It would pass the resident’s request for copies of correspondence to its data protection officer as it would have to be dealt with as a data information request.
3. It had asked for an update on the purchase of the lease and to date a decision had not been made.
4. It required the resident to confirm by 16 December 2021 whether he would accept the alternative offer of temporary decant accommodation.
The resident informed the landlord on 16 December 2021 that he was collecting all relevant information and advice to help him make a decision. He said that, in his opinion, the best way to resolve the issue was for the landlord to buy back his lease or exchange his flat for another similar market value property within the same area.
The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed that it would not be offering compensation, however if he moved into an alternative property, it would not charge him for the stay. It said:
1. The roof was the responsibility of the freeholder. Its contractors had looked at the roof and it was a very complex structure and if it was to do any temporary fixes it could have a greater impact. The advice it had been given was to pursue the freeholder for the repairs to be carried out.
2. It would not be making an offer to buy back his home.
On 17 December 2021, the resident confirmed that he would like to accept the offer of alternative temporary accommodation.
A roof condition survey was completed on 4 January 2022 on behalf of the landlord. The survey identified several defects which could be associated with the original design and gradual deterioration of the waterproofing. The survey recommended that the standing seam waterproofing system was refurbished within the next 12 months.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on 4 March 2022. It said:
1. The freeholder had started to engage with its solicitors but had not responded to more recent communication. Its solicitor would put the freeholder on 7 days’ notice of court action and request a schedule of the works to be completed. If the freeholder did not respond, it would proceed to apply for an injunction and would ask the court to award costs.
2. It would like to include any financial loss to the resident within its application. It said that there was no guarantee that the court would grant this, however it was worth pursuing. It asked the resident to confirm his monthly payments by 7 March 2022 so it could be included in the court application.
On 8 March 2022, the resident informed the landlord that he did not want to be included in the court application.
The landlord’s solicitors wrote to the freeholder on 9 March 2022. The letter included a copy of the roof survey. In addition, the freeholder was reminded for a further time of the responsibility on them to remedy the defects identified in the survey as a matter of urgency.
On 30 March 2022, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two.
On 25 April 2022, the resident asked the landlord to provide him with a chronology of the reports related to the roof and inform him of the actions the landlord and the freeholder had taken to remedy them since the construction of the property was completed in 2007. He also wished to add to his complaint that the landlord had failed to take action to identify flaws in the roof structure within a reasonable time which subsequently caused the current situation.
The landlord requested an extension to respond to the resident’s complaint on 29 April 2022 due to the additional information that he had requested and the additional complaint he had asked the landlord to investigate.
During May 2022, the landlord’s solicitor was in communication with a representative of the freeholder. The representative accepted responsibility for the roof but denied it required replacement as per the recommendations contained in the roof survey.
The landlord provided a stage two response to the resident on 16 May 2022. It said:
1. It was the responsibility of the freeholder to make the repairs to the roof. It had taken reasonable steps and used its best endeavours to work with the current and previous freeholders and agents to undertake remedial works to the roof in accordance with its legal obligations. Despite those efforts, the freeholders and agents had not undertaken works and therefore, it was instigating legal action against them to compel compliance with their legal duties as relates to repair. Therefore, it was unable to uphold this part of the complaint.
2. As a shared owner or a full leaseholder, it was the resident’s responsibility to repair and maintain the electrics in his property. This was also the case where an incident outside of the resident’s control, such as a leak into the property, had occurred. In this case, it did arrange an electrical inspection which took place on 27 October 2021. As the check could not guarantee the safety of the resident’s electrics, it had offered to decant him.
3. It was unable to uphold this part of the complaint as it had taken the concerns regarding his safety seriously, arranged an electrical check as a gesture of goodwill and decanted him from the property. It had also taken the appropriate action with the freeholder to compel them to complete the works needed.
4. In the resident’s email of 25 April 2022, he asked for a breakdown of all reported issues since 2007. It had investigated the request and concluded that it was not something it was able to provide.
5. It was able to provide the resident with information regarding the repairs that he had reported and confirmed that the resident had reported a leak through his ceiling when it rained on 24 April 2016, 10 August 2018, 11 June 2019, and 19 July 2021.
6. It was able to provide the resident with information about the actions it took following the resident’s reports of a leak in June 2019. It said:
  1. On 11 June 2019, the resident called to report the leak and it advised that it would let the freeholder know.
  2. On 11 June 2019, the resident called regarding compensation for damage following the leak and it advised that it would not be responsible for this and it gave the freeholders email address to the resident.
  3. On 12 June 2019, the resident called to dispute the advice that he was given and a task was raised for the relevant officer.
  4. On 20 June 2019, it had left the resident a voicemail to let him know that it was awaiting details of the new freeholder.
7. It had requested that the departments responsible for the additional information requested by the resident reviewed his request and it would update him once it had received a response. The additional information was in relation to fire risk assessments, a list of invoices of the roof repairs since 2007 and which of those costs were added to a service charge, and a copy of the new building warranty.
8. His request for information relating to the insurance was being managed by the finance team.
9. It was not able to disclose its dealings with other residents within the block.
10. It was sorry that the resident felt that it had been negligent in its response to his reports of the leaks from the roof. As it did not own the building, it was not responsible for the repairs to, or replacement of, the roof.
The resident and his family moved out of his property on 30 May 2022 into temporary accommodation provided by the landlord. The property was not within the same block.
The resident submitted an insurance claim sometime in May 2022. The insurance company refused the claim on the basis that:
1. The landlord had already taken the responsibility of making sure that the resident was in habitable accommodation.
2. The policy covered what the resident would have lost, however he was not in receipt of a rental income at the time of the claim and he confirmed that he had no tenants arranged.
On 29 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and said:
1. It had checked back on the building specification at the time of the refit, which required a 10 year warranty or insurance for major structural damage. Unfortunately, it had been unable to locate a copy of the warranty or insurance document issued at the time. However, due to the time lapse since the refit, the insurance or warranty would no longer be valid.
2. It had not had a response from its service charge manager regarding roof repairs which had been accounted for in the service charges.
3. It was willing to cover reasonable standing charges for gas and electric at the resident’s flat. It required proof of the charges being made such as a bill or statement.
4. It did not normally cover the standing charge for water. However, if he informed the water company that he was not currently living at the property, they should make some adjustments to the amount charged.
5. The freeholder had recently submitted a schedule of works for the roof, which were not satisfactory as they did not address the failings identified. For this reason, it was continuing with the legal action. It was sorry that it did not have a court date yet. Its solicitors had advised that delays had occurred in appointing counsel representation to lead on the case, so matters had not progressed as quickly as expected.
6. It would keep the resident updated with any progress.
The landlord contacted the resident on 29 July 2022 and informed him that it had made progress with the freeholder. It said that they did appear to be accepting responsibility for the roof and had indicated works they intended to complete. However, the works proposed did not address all the issues identified with the roof. This was being considered by the property team and the freeholder.
On 20 September 2022, the landlord made an application to the county court for an injunction to order the freeholder to comply with the obligations contained within the lease and to carry out the recommended works to the roof.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of remedial repairs to the roof of the block and electrical assessment of the resident’s property

It should be noted in this case that the landlord is not the freeholder of the property. The landlord holds the property under a headlease and it has granted a sublease to the resident. Therefore, the resident does not have a direct contractual relationship with the freeholder.
Under the terms of the headlease between the freeholder and the landlord, the freeholder is responsible for maintaining, repairing, and renewing the roof to the building. The resident is responsible for keeping the interior of his property in good and substantial repair. This includes the electrical equipment and wiring.
The information for leaseholders and shared owners on the landlord’s website confirms the responsibilities of each party. However, it is not clear as to the process for residents wishing to report repairs which are not the responsibility of the landlord, or the resident, to a third party, such as the freeholder.
It is not disputed that there has been an intermittent leak into the resident’s flat since 2019, which has resulted in the resident having to move into temporary accommodation due to concerns around the safety of the electrics within the property. The landlord has sought to enforce the terms of the headlease and compel the freeholder to carry out the necessary works.
When the resident contacted the landlord in October 2020, the landlord initially informed the resident to contact the freeholder directly, as it was not responsible for repairs to the roof. Given that the landlord was aware that the resident had no legal relationship with the freeholder, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the freeholder on the resident’s behalf. Nevertheless, once the resident disputed this, the landlord did make contact with the freeholder to report the repair.
The landlord again informed the resident that he should contact the freeholder directly when he contacted it on 7 December 2020 to report that the roof was still leaking. On this occasion, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord did contact the freeholder, which is unreasonable. It took until the resident contacted the landlord again on 11 January 2021, to ask for its help in resolving the leak to the roof before any further progress was made. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the freeholder directly in the circumstances and for the landlord to have been more proactive in attempting to resolve the leak between October 2020 and January 2021.
From January 2021 onwards, the landlord did attempt to investigate the cause of the problem, and it has taken a number of remedial actions, although it was under no obligation to do so, including attempting to patch repair the roof and the instruction of a specialist roof survey. It did appear that the repairs had been successful when the resident confirmed that there had been no further water ingress on 27 July 2021.
When the roof started to leak again in October 2021, the resident informed the landlord that he was concerned about the safety of the electrical wiring in his flat. On this occasion, the landlord arranged for an electrical safety check, as a gesture of goodwill, even though this was the resident’s responsibility under the terms of the sublease.
It is not clear from the evidence provided why the landlord did not complete an electrical safety check prior to this date or at the point when the resident first reported concerns in relation to his electrics in October 2020. It is also unclear as to whether the landlord provided appropriate advice to the resident, in relation to his responsibility for his electrics, at this point. However, as it was the resident’s responsibility, and the landlord was under no obligation to arrange an electrical check, there can be no finding of any unreasonable or unfair behaviour on the part of the landlord. By agreeing to undertake the electrical check in October 2021, the landlord went beyond its responsibilities contained within the lease.
As soon as the landlord was aware that the resident’s property was potentially unsafe, it acted appropriately and offered the resident an alternative property within the same block. From the information provided, it is unclear as to the layout and size of the alternative property, however given that it was in the same block, it would likely have caused less disruption to the resident and his family, rather than moving to a different property. It also meant that the resident and his family could be moved to safe accommodation within a reasonable amount of time.
It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly why the resident refused the property offered by the landlord, although he does refer to further loss as he was unable to remortgage or sell the property. The landlord did appropriately advise the resident that he could appoint his own electrician in the circumstances, to make a further, more detailed assessment of the electrics within his property. The landlord also appropriately recommended that the resident seek his own legal advice.
Once it was clear that the freeholder was not going to carry out the required roof repairs, the landlord acted appropriately and referred the matter to its solicitors.
The landlord’s stage one response confirmed that it was not responsible for the repairs to the roof and that it had asked the freeholder to carry out the repairs, but they had refused. The landlord agreed that it would pay the buildings insurance excess to fix the ceiling once the roof was repaired. It also created an action plan to provide the resident with information as to when any outstanding actions would be completed, which was reasonable.
The landlord acted appropriately by keeping the resident up to date with the progression of the legal case against the freeholder and by offering to include any financial loss incurred by the resident within its court application. However, the resident declined to be involved. It is unclear from the information provided why the resident refused the landlord’s offer to include his losses within the court application. This was a missed opportunity for the resident to be compensated for any loss incurred by the freeholder’s refusal to comply with their obligations under the headlease.
The resident moved into alternative accommodation on 30 May 2022. From the evidence provided, the delays from the resident accepting the offer of temporary accommodation on 17 December 2021 until the date the resident moved were in relation to the landlord finding a suitable property for the resident and his family within the same locality. As the landlord had already offered the resident a suitable property within the same block as soon as it became aware of the safety concerns, there was no service failure on the part of the landlord. The landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances and the availability of accommodation within the locality was not within its control.
In summary, it is evident and understandable that the amount of time taken to resolve the leak was distressing, frustrating, and inconvenient for the resident and his family, particularly as they had to move into alternative accommodation. However, with the exception of the period between October 2020 and January 2021, the delays could not be attributed to the landlord as the responsibility to address the issue was that of the freeholder. The landlord has demonstrated that from January 2021 it took the resident’s reports seriously and attempted to find a resolution for the resident, which resulted in legal action against the freeholder.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of remedial repairs to the roof of the block and electrical assessment of the resident’s property.

Reasons

There was an unreasonable delay between October 2020 and January 2021 when the landlord should have been more proactive in contacting the freeholder and updating the resident in respect of the ongoing roof leak.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £200 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the failure in its handling of remedial repairs to the roof of the block and electrical assessment of his property.
Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report.
2. Ensure that it has effective procedures in place for leaseholders reporting relevant repairs that are the responsibility of a third party freeholder. The landlord should consider the legal relationship between the parties and make provision within the process for any issues that may arise in relation to disputes and delays.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.