Wiltshire Council (202108732)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108732

Wiltshire Council

07 October 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about
1. The level of service charge demanded by the landlord following a roof repair.
2. The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s report of a broken roof tile.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42e of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: a) the level of service charge demanded by the landlord following a roof repair.
Paragraph 42e of the Housing Ombudsman scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.”
The landlord calculated service charges imposed on the resident by taking the cost of the roof repair work and dividing it by the number of flats in the block. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) for leaseholders would be the appropriate body to investigate and decide on whether the service charge demanded was reasonable or not.
The FTT can be contacted using the details below: The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) 10 Alfred Place London WC1E 7LR Email: rplondon@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk Telephone 0207 446 7700.

Background and summary of events

The leaseholder’s property is situated in a block of eight flats and the freeholder is the landlord. The leaseholder sublets two of the properties within the block to third parties.
In April 2019, one of the leaseholder’s tenants in the block reported a leak. The leaseholder entered the roof space himself and found that “a roof tile had cracked apart and slipped down, allowing the elements to attack the sarking felt.” The exact date this happened has not been documented but it is not disputed that this occurred in April 2019 and the issue was promptly reported by the leaseholder to the landlord.
Despite the leaseholder being careful to identify exactly where the tile was, there is evidence that this information was not passed on effectively by the landlord to the surveyor attending the location in response. This was due to a lack of space on the forms or due to the software used by the landlord.
A joint visit occurred in May 2019 by a repairs surveyor working on behalf of the landlord and a roofing contractor. A ladder was put up to the roof and it was identified that one of the interlocking tiles beneath the ridge of the roof was raised and allowing water ingress. The surveyor requested contractors remove and re-bed this tile. The surveyor also noted that ‘a small section of the roof had dropped’. The surveyor found that some of the battens of the roof had become rotten, were causing this drop and needed to be renewed. It was noted that some of the roof felt remained in good condition and could be left untouched.
The surveyor described the work required as
1. “Remove approximately 1 metre of ridge line and replace the broken tiles and rebed the ridge.
2. Take off approximately 1m² of tiles, battens and felt in another location.
3. Fit new felt and battens and relay the tiles.
The findings of the surveyor are disputed by the resident who says that there was no dip in the roof and the landlord should simply have replaced the damaged tile he had identified. The resident has also said that there were alternatives to scaffolding that could have been considered such as a portable tower scaffold. The leaseholder has also said that the description of the work on point 3 above is misleading or inaccurate since new felt has not been fitted in either of his flats.
The cost of the work was £577. This was broken down as £395 for the scaffolding required, as well as VAT and the cost of materials and labour. A portion of this cost would later be charged to the leaseholder along with other leaseholders within the block.
When carrying out the work in June 2019, a cable was dislodged and this was reported by the leaseholder. This resulted in further cost of £81 for refixing the cable. The leaseholder says this work was never carried out despite him being charged for it. The landlord has not disputed this in its formal responses to the resident. The leaseholder has said that this work should have been carried out free of charge by those responsible for dislodging the cable which was the scaffolding crew.
The leaseholder contacted the roofing contractors directly about the cost of the roofing costs but was not satisfied with their explanation. Instead, the leaseholder said that the contractor had become flustered and said that they had been told what to put on the invoice by the landlord.
No evidence has been seen that this matter was pursued further by the leaseholder until 3 September 2020, when a meeting was held between the leaseholder, a local councillor and a representative of the landlord. The leaseholder put forward his concerns about what had happened at the property including the costs of the work and whether or not each part of the work was required. The resident also stated his dissatisfaction with the cable not being replaced properly. The landlord agreed to investigate the matter further.
Internal communications indicate that the landlord carried out some investigation of what had happened at the property. The surveyor gave his account of events and during October 2020, attempts were made to visually verify if the dislodged cable had been refixed correctly but no confirmation has been seen by this service.
On 5 January 2021, the landlord responded to the leaseholder about his concerns. This was a first stage complaint response although it was not specifically labelled as such. The response included photographs which the landlord said were taken at the time and showed that the works identified by the surveyor had been required. The landlord concluded that “from the photos and explanation given it does not seem that unnecessary work was undertaken.” Following the investigation in to the cabling issue, the landlord stated that it would be changing its procedures as a result of its investigation so that random post-inspection of works would be undertaken including works below the cost of £100. The response addressed some other more general concerns about staff behaviours and gave information about how to escalate the complaint if needed.
On 20 May 2021 the leaseholder wrote to the landlord detailing why he was not satisfied with the explanation provided by the landlord. In his letter, the leaseholder said that:
1. He had given a detailed description of where the damaged tile was but this information had not been passed on to the surveyor.
2. The resident had been shocked to see full scaffolding up for the work as it was unnecessary for this work.
3. The photographs provided by the landlord did not prove anything and could have been ‘rigged’ according to third parties the leaseholder asked.
4. Rotten battens may not have been causing the ‘depression in the roof’ and it could been raised tiles instead.
5. He was “concerned that unnecessary and faulty work had been carried out and charged for.”
6. Other independent roofing contractors asked to give their opinions on the photographs and information from the landlord had said this was a ‘classic cowboy job’ and there were many scam artists trying to take advantage of the situation.
7. The tv aerial should have been re-attached free of charge.
8. Sarking (felt) was charged for and not fitted
9. The landlord had used improper materials such as expanding foam and a temporary adhesive in repairing the ridge of the roof.
10. He had “been the victim of several examples of incompetence or outright over-charging and I have had enough.”
On 8 July 2021, the landlord responded at the final stage of the complaints process. The landlord said that
1. It did not routinely have a tendering process for this type of work since roof repairs were often urgent and the delays caused could lead to additional damage.
2. No evidence of maladministration had been found during their investigation
3. The landlord had acted in accordance with their policies and procedures
4. The complaint was not upheld.
On July 2021, the leaseholder confirmed that he wanted to escalate his further in a letter to his landlord. The leaseholder again said that he had been overcharged and the supporting evidence provided by the landlord was false. The leaseholder said that it was fraudulent to charge for work which was knowingly not done and the poor workmanship should be rectified by a suitably qualified professional. The leaseholder repeated these sentiments in a letter to this service dated 6 September 2021 stating he was not satisfied with the outcome of his complaint and intended to take the matter to court if necessary.

Assessment and findings

The landlords repair obligations are set out in the lease as follows: “Repair rebuild maintain or repoint or otherwise treat as necessary the main structure of the building including the external main walls foundations and roof and keep every part thereof in good and substantial repair order and condition renewing or replacing all worn or damaged parts thereof.” As such, once the broken tile was reported by the leaseholder, there was a clear obligation on the landlord to take action.
The landlords ‘leaseholder guide’ further outline the obligations of the landlord as
1. keeping the structure of the buildings, and the outside and shared areas of the building in good repair and condition
2. repairing any structural faults which develop
3. making good any damage to the building (including your flat but not your personal possessions) caused by any peril that it is the usual practice to insure against e.g. storm, flood, fire, etc.
4. maintaining, as far as possible, the services you receive as a secure tenant.
The landlord’s first action was to attend with a surveyor (who returned with the roofing contractor) to assess the work required. It is noted that the description of the location of the damaged tile was not given to the surveyor and therefore he made an assessment of the overall roof situation rather than focussing specifically on what the leaseholder had reported.
The failure to accurately record and send to the surveyor what the leaseholder had reported was an initial failure that has not been fully recognised by the landlord and has contributed to the complaint. The landlord should learn from this and ensure that information given by residents when they report faults is recorded appropriately.
The decision to assess the overall condition of the roof (rather than an individual tile) was reasonable given that the surveyor had been asked to investigate and resolve a possible leaking roof at the site. During the inspection, the landlord says that tiles were raised and rotten battens were found. There is no evidence to dispute this and the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of a suitably qualified professional.
The photographic evidence provided by the landlord in its initial response is disputed by the leaseholder. Similarly, the existence and cause of a ‘depression’ or ‘drop’ in the roof is disputed by the leaseholder. The focus of this investigation is on whether or not the landlord responded in a reasonable way to the residents report of a damaged tile and the subsequent complaint rather than a technical analysis of the works carried out. This service does not have sufficient technical knowledge to make such an assessment.
The landlord based its actions on the opinions of a qualified surveyor who had been on site to inspect the roof. This was reasonable and there is no evidence showing the work carried out was unnecessary.
The decision by the landlord to use scaffolding was also reasonable. Although the leaseholder has suggested that cheaper alternatives could have been used, there were legitimate safety concerns about working on parts of the roof which were damaged or rotten. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its workers.
The leaseholder has also stated that he has been charged for work that has not been carried out. The wording on the description of works used by the landlord, specifically to “fit new felt” was misleading since felt was not replaced in all areas of the roof. The landlord does not dispute saying that the felt in some areas did not require replacing. However, this has evidently contributed to the leaseholder’s view that works have been charged for that were not carried out.
This was also evident regarding re-affixing the cabling or TV aerial which became dislodged during the roof work. A charge of over £80 was made to reaffix this but it remains unclear if this was ever carried out. The landlord made some attempts to verify this in October 2020 and claims that the work was done but this is still disputed by the leaseholder. Recommendations regarding this issue and the leaseholder’s outstanding concerns about the materials used in the roof repair have been made below.
Overall, the landlord showed a willingness to investigate and review what happened when the leaseholder raised his concerns via a Councillor in September 2020. This was a slow process and did not conform to the timescale stated within the landlord’s complaints policy of 20-30 working days for a stage 1 response.
However, the landlord indicated that it wanted to understand what had happened the previous year to see if something had gone wrong. There is no evidence that the landlord followed an unsuitable process for investigating what had happened. The landlord also showed it had learned from the complaint by changing its procedure to carry out random post-work inspections on works under £100 to assist with issues such as the unverified cabling work in future cases.
Having reviewed the landlord’s final stage complaint response, more could have been done to recognise the various service failures that occurred. These failings were in summary:
1. A failure to accurately record the leaseholders original report.
2. A failure to describe the works accurately for the purposes of charging the leaseholder.
3. A need to adjust its procedures to carry out more random post-work inspections.
Had the landlord identified these in its final stage response, and made an offer to put things right for the leaseholder based on these failings, this may have been successful in resolving the complaint. The leaseholder has been considerably inconvenienced by taking time and trouble to pursue his complaint and therefore a payment of £150 is appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s report of a broken roof tile.

Reasons

The work carried out to repair the roof was reasonable and the landlord had an obligation to carry it out under the terms of the lease. However, some service failures occurred including failures in communication and some delays in complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that the landlord pay the leaseholder £150 within four weeks in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder by the identified service failures.