Haringey Council (201914247)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914247

Haringey Council

8 February 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak, its offer of compensation for consequential damage to the resident’s possessions, and remedial works to the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident occupied a one-bedroom flat located on the 2nd floor under a secure tenancy with the landlord, which tenancy had begun on 17 November 2011.

Legal and policy framework

3. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to keep the structure and outside of the property in repair. Where the landlord was responsible for repairs, the resident had the right to have the repairs done within a reasonable period of time. The resident may be entitled to compensation if the landlord did not carry out some repairs on time.
4. Under the repairs policy in the form of its repairs handbook, “reactive” or “responsive” repairs were completed “as and when they were needed”. The landlord would attend within 24 hours of a resident reporting an emergency. It would attempt to complete the repair on first attendance. An emergency included a “major” water leak, partial loss of electricity supply, or light fittings not working. Roof leaks would be dealt with within 28 days.
5. The landlord “strongly” encouraged the resident to take out contents insurance against damage to the resident’s possessions due to unforeseen events such as  leaks. It stated that residents would only be able to make a claim against the landlord if they could show that the damage was the result of negligence on the part of the landlord.
6. Under the compensation policy, compensation would be paid where:
   1. A complainant had been adversely affected by the landlord’s delay in taking action.
   2. A complainant had sustained loss or suffering resulting from a service failure.
   3. The investigating officer or complaints panel could find no practical action to provide a full and appropriate remedy of the adverse effect caused by the service failure. It would consider any quantifiable loss and the resident’s time and trouble.
7. It would pay £10 as one-off payment plus £2 per day of delay. In “exceptional circumstances”, it would pay £10-£40 per week of failure to reflect particular circumstances.

Chronology

8. The resident has informed this service that in disrepair proceedings 6 years previously, it was recommended that the landlord repair the roof and the repair  was not carried out until 2019. The resident provided this service with a specification of works from the landlord dated 11 September 2015 addressed to a contractor in relation to the resident’s property. It included instructions to its contractors to investigate the roof to identify potential leak/water penetration (possibly historic). While the resident informed this service there had been historical disrepair to the roof, there were no repairs or reports in relation to the roof in the landlord’s repairs records, going back to the outset of the tenancy. It was therefore not clear whether there was a disrepair claim or, if there was, what was the outcome.
9. On 24 October 2019, the resident reported leaks when it rained. It also stated that there was a water leak from the roof into the resident’s corridor, bathroom and living room. The report was marked “treat as urgent”. The landlord arranged for an electrician to attend to reinstate the electricity on the same day. A roofer attended on 25 October 2019. The landlord stated that there were no further notes in its repair records. According to the landlord’s later internal emails, when the landlord’s roofers attended, the landlord’s roofing contractors were already on site dealing with the issue. However, also according to the landlord’s emails, the landlord noted that the resident’s property was on the top floor and had a flat roof. The works carried out by contractors were separate from the works to the roof above the resident’s flat.
10. On 20 December 2019, the landlord raised a job to strip the hallway, redecorate the lounge, and redecorate the bedroom, however there was no timescale or evidence in the landlord’s repair records or indication it was carried out at that stage.
11. A surveyor, on behalf of the landlord, attended the property on 3 February 2020 and was informed that the resident did not live at that address. The inspection was rebooked for 19 February 2020.
12. The resident made a formal complaint on 11 February 2020 as follows:
    1. The resident had suffered a flood at the end of October 2019. Her electrics had shorted out due to the flooding. The landlord’s contracted roofers who had been working on the roof had failed to secure the roof correctly. As a result, when it rained, the rain came straight through into her property. The landlord made the electrics safe but did not repair the roof. She was not provided with a dehumidifier. The landlord arranged to switch the electrics on and closed the job. A surveyor was due to attend 3 February 2020. She waited at home all day and was informed by the landlord that the surveyor had attended, but was told she did not live at the address.
    2. Her possessions that were in boxes were completely ruined, and she incurred costs as no dehumidifier was provided despite requesting one. The incident had effected her study course work, as well as her health, due to the damp in the property as she is a chronic asthmatic. The ceiling had become discoloured. She required compensation for the damage to her possessions, her increased energy costs and the distress she suffered as a result of this incident. She was waiting for the damage to the walls and flooring to be repaired. She provided video and photographic evidence of the damage.
13. The landlord wrote to the resident with a response as follows on 25 February 2020:
    1. It accepted it had failed in its service provided and offered compensation for her time and trouble attempting to resolve the repair issue.
    2. The landlord had arranged an inspection by a surveyor in December 2019. Due to the Christmas period, staff leave and the demand for surveyor’s appointments, the earliest appointment was 3 February 2020. The surveyor had been unable to gain access to inspect the property on 3 February 2019 and inspection was rearranged for 19 February 2020.
    3. Remedial works to make good and decorate the affected areas were in hand but, at that time, the landlord was unable to provide a date when the works would take place.
    4. Its discretionary compensation policy did not address stress or loss/damage to personal items and she would have to make an insurance claim against its insurers.
    5. It offered £100 in accordance with its policy as follows:
       1. £20 in relation to not completing a repair until the fifth day £10 plus £2 per day for up to 5 days.
       2. £80 under the category “exceptional circumstances” of its policy, being £20 per week for 4 weeks, as it did not provide a dehumidifier. It would have normally provided a dehumidifier in a property for up to two weeks to dry out. As she had incurred additional energy costs, it had doubled the timeframe to compensate for any additional energy costs.
14. On 25 February 2020, the landlord noted that the surveyor recorded on 19 February 2020 the following works to be carried out:
    1. Hack and renew plaster on an area of the hallway ceiling.
    2. Strip lining paper and redecoration.
    3. Redecorate bedroom, lounge (except wallpaper) and the bathroom ceiling.
15. It also noted that the resident reported that all the rooms bar the kitchen were affected, the worst being the hallway. It stated that the walls and particularly the ceilings appeared to be completely dry.
16. On 27 February 2020, the surveyor advised that the landlord check the roof was fully repaired as a precautionary measure.
17. The landlord wrote again to the resident also on 27 February 2020 and increased the compensation to £200 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the repairs. It also arranged a home visit.
18. On 29 February 2020, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. The offer did not cover the cost of her gas and electricity over the 5 months it took the property to dry out. Her asthma had deteriorated. The episode had affected her studies. She had to replace some of her possessions. She said the flood was the fault of the contractors. She had water “pouring down the walls and ceiling” for five days. Even once the roof was fixed, the surveyor failed to attend.
19. According to the landlord’s email of 1 April 2020, the remedial works at the property were completed apart from the hallway redecoration. It maintained that the delay was due to the resident cancelling the works on 20 and 23 March 2020. The resident has informed this service she had not cancelled the works but simply wanted to be reassured in relation to what precautions were being taken given the announcement of a pandemic. The remaining works were postponed until lockdown was lifted.
20. On 6 April 2020, the landlord wrote with its second stage response as follows:
    1. The resident was unable to provide evidence of her energy costs as she had a pay-as-you-go meter. It concluded that the additional amount it had offered would have covered the additional costs.
    2. The repair works had been completed, apart from re-decoration to the hallway.
    3. It had noted the resident’s claim that the contractors had damaged her dining table when they were moving furniture to carry out works. It had concluded that the damage was pre-existing as an assembly part was missing from the table, however as a gesture of goodwill, it had purchased a new tabletop which would be delivered once lockdown was lifted.
21. The resident responded on 6 April 2020 to state that the work in the bedroom and half the passage has not been completed. She had been unable to provide information regarding the energy costs due to not receiving her mail. She stated that one contractor had only offered one appointment on 24 March 2020. She stated that she had agreed to the appointment as long as they were working within the coronavirus regulations. She did not hear anything further. She was reluctant to accept the first contractor as they did not inform her that they had broken her dining room table.
22. On 8 April 2020, the landlord replied stating it felt it had addressed the complaint adequately and offered the resident an opportunity to provide further information for it to consider.
23. On 3 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord stating she was awaiting works to be completed and the outcome of her insurance claim. The contractor had provided the incorrect tabletop.
24. The contractor wrote to the landlord on 3 September 2020 that the table had been leaning close against the wall. One of the legs had not been attached. There was no breakage but it appeared the part where the leg was to be screwed into the table top was missing. Attempts had been made to adhere the leg into the top by using strong glue. However, it agreed to replace the table as a gesture of goodwill. The resident sent a hyperlink to a table online by text message and, after confirming additional details, it ordered the same table on 20 March 2020 , which was delivered to the landlord on 28 March 2020. The landlord delivered it to the resident on Friday 28 August 2020 when it was safe to do so.
25. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 September 2020. It set out the contractor’s detailed description of the events concerning the tabletop. It could not determine who was responsible. Its discretionary compensation policy did not cover loss or damages for personal items and it directed the resident to the landlord’s insurers. It requested a description and photographic evidence of any outstanding works.
26. On 20 November 2020, the resident informed this service that she had made an insurance claim for the items that were damaged and was awaiting a response.
27. On 14 July 2021, the resident informed this service that her bedroom and hall still required redecorating.
28. The landlord informed this service that there were no outstanding repairs as at 27 January 2022 and that its contractors had retracted its offer to carry out redecoration to areas damaged by the leak. The reasons for its retraction is not known, nor whether the landlord communicated the retraction to the resident. The landlord’s view was that redecoration was the responsibility of the resident. The landlord also stated that the resident’s insurance claim was referred to the roofing contractors’ insurers as the landlord’s insurers determined that the flooding was due to the failure by the contractors.

Assessment and findings

29. The question of whether the landlord should compensate the resident for the leak itself and the damage to her possessions depends on whether the landlord was liable for the leak. While the resident’s view was that the landlord was at fault for not repairing the roof years earlier, the resident also stated that the landlord’s contractors were at fault for not replacing the roof correctly. The landlord’s insurers also considered that it was the landlord’s contractors who were at fault. While there is evidence that the landlord arranged an inspection of the roof and of potential leaks in 2015, there is no evidence of the outcome. Moreover, the inspection would have been historical so it may not have a bearing on the leak that occurred on 24 October 2020 in any event.
30. In the circumstances of this case, it was reasonable of the landlord to refer the resident to its insurers who would be better placed to consider liability and the resident’s claim. There is not enough evidence for the Ombudsman to be able to determine the issue and moreover, the issue would involve legal principles that can only be determined in a court of law.
31. While the Ombudsman has not commented on the cause of the leak and whether landlord was liable, the landlord did not dispute that there was a leak. The evidence showed that the resulting repair and remedial works caused distress and inconvenience to resident.
32. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether a landlord’s response to its resident’s reports complied with the landlord’s legal obligations, its own policies and with good practice. The Ombudsman also considers whether a landlord’s responses were appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
33. The resident has informed this service that the landlord’s insurers require the name of the roofing contractor in order for the landlord’s insurers to progress the claim. The Ombudsman notes that the name of the contractor had been disclosed in correspondence between the parties. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to cooperate with any insurance claim on behalf of the resident and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard,
34. While the evidence is not clear, it was not ultimately disputed by the parties that the leak was repaired within five days of the report. The landlord acted reasonably in offering compensation for the delay in undertaking the repair to the roof, which compensation was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord’s explanation of how it arrived at the sum of money in relation to the energy costs was reasonable, given it did not have the information in order to be precise, due to the difficulties the resident had in obtaining her bills. Therefore, in the circumstances, it made an approximation of the costs that the Ombudsman considers to have been reasonable. The landlord went some way to address the leak, the energy costs and that it did not provide a dehumidifier. However, the offer did not properly address the effect of not providing a dehumidifier, which would have mitigated the effects of the leak on the resident.
35. The evidence showed thar the landlord offered to carry out remedial works, but they were delayed and were outstanding as at 25 February 2020. According to the landlord, by 6 April 2020, it completed the redecoration to all but the hallway. There was no evidence that the landlord updated the resident which would have increased the resident’s frustration. The extent as to what is outstanding is disputed, given that, according to the resident, the decoration to the bedroom and hallway remained outstanding. While the landlord informed this service that there were no works outstanding, it is reasonable to conclude that was in the context of the contractor’s withdrawal of its offer to carry out the repairs. However, that decision by the contractor does not relieve the landlord of its responsibilities.
36. There is a dispute as to the reasons why the outstanding remedial repairs that were due to take place 24 March 2020 were delayed. One factor was the decision by the contractors not to carry out the works. Another factor was the national lockdown which commenced in England on 26 March 2020. However, had the remedial works taken place sooner, this would not have been an issue.
37. Even though there were aspects that were disputed, the evidence showed there were significant delays to the remedial works, some of which are not disputed. However, the landlord did not recognise the delay to the remedial works. It did not address the impact on the resident or her distress, even though the policy stated that it would pay compensation for “loss” or “suffering” resulting from a service failure.
38. Moreover, the landlord stated that it would undertake the remedial repairs. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord, at the very least, to communicate and explain its decisions to its residents and to adhere to its assurances or offering compensation in lieu.
39. In the Ombudsman’s view, there was maladministration in relation to the delays in carrying out the remedial works.
40. The resident’s complaint was that the compensation was insufficient given that the leak had effected her studies, her physical health, and it had caused her to lose her place at university. The Ombudsman cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. It cannot assess medical evidence and does not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.
41. The landlord acted reasonably in seeking to address the issue of the dining room table. Despite the fact there was a dispute about the cause of the damage, the evidence shows that the landlord made reasonable attempts to work with the contractor to address the damage and to investigate events. In the circumstances, again, it was reasonable of the landlord to direct the resident to the landlord’s insurers.
42. It is noted that the schedule of works of 2015 was not reflected in the landlord’s repair records and that the records contained insufficient information as to the repairs and remedial works that did take place.

Determination (decision)

43. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak, its offer of compensation for consequential damage to the resident’s possessions, and remedial works to the resident’s property.

Reasons

44. While the landlord attended to the substantive leak and went some way to address its service failures, it did not recognise the delay to the remedial works, the impact on the resident, and it withdrew its assurances it would carry the works out.

Orders

45. The landlord is ordered as follows:
    1. to pay the resident compensation a further amount of £150 in addition to the £200 offered within 28 days.
    2. to instruct a contractor of its choice to carry out the works identified by its surveyor that remain outstanding, so that they are completed within 42 days. If the resident wishes to use her own contractor, the landlord should contact the resident in order to agree what is outstanding and the landlord to reimburse the resident on her providing the landlord with an estimate for those works.
    3. If, for good reason, the works cannot be carried out within the timescale or at all, the landlord is to write to the resident, within 28 days of this report, with an explanation and a fresh and reasonable timescale for the works, if applicable. The landlord to send a copy of that communication, supported by any relevant evidence, to the Ombudsman, also within 28 days.
46. The landlord should confirm compliance to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above orders on compliance and no later than 42 days of this report.

Recommendations

47. The landlord should take reasonable steps to liaise with its insurers or its contractors on the resident’s behalf, check on progress of her claim and, if it has not done so, provide the full contact details of the roofing contractors to the resident.
48. The landlord should ensure that its repairs records are complete to ensure it can track its own actions.
49. The landlord should ensure that it updates its residents in relation to any delays to repairs and remedial works.