Hackney Council (202115939)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115939

Hackney Council

20 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of, and communication about, the repairs to the roof.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident and her partner were leaseholders of a two-bedroom, second floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder. The flat is within a new build block, completed in 2017.
3. The landlord’s new build team were responsible for the maintenance of the building during the two-year defect period (2017-2019).
4. The landlord holds a 10-year new build structural warranty with Local Authority Building Control (LABC). The landlord also has a 2-year warranty with the roofing company who installed the roof in 2017.
5. Above the resident’s property is a flat roof (garden roof), accessible from a communal stairway access point.
6. For ease of reading within the report:
   • the leaseholders are referred to as “resident.”
   • the landlord’s own contractor is referred to as “Company A.”
   • The original contractor, who held the warranty, is referred to as “Company B.”

Lease Agreement

7. Clause 1 of the fifth schedule grants the Lessee (resident) “the right of support and shelter so far as may be necessary for the demised premises as the same is at present enjoyed from the adjoining flat or flats and any part of the Estate which may be respectively below or beside or above the demised premises or any part thereof and the foundations thereof and the right to the protections afforded to the demised premises by the roof of the Block”.
8. Clause 1 of the ninth schedule in the lease agreement states that the Lessor (landlord) is obliged “to keep in good and substantial repair and condition (and whenever necessary rebuild and re-instate and renew and replace all worn or damaged parts):
   • The main structure of the Block including all foundations forming part of the Block all exterior and all-party walls and structures…and including all roofs and chimneys and every part of the property above the level of the top floor ceilings.”

Repair Policy (for tenants and leaseholders)

9. The landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and outside of the property. The landlord’s published repair times are:

a.     Immediate repairs are attended within two hours, examples include flooding and danger to life and limb.

b.     Emergency repairs are attended within 24 hours and made safe; examples include uncontrollable water leaks.

c.      Urgent repairs are attended within five working days.

d.     Normal repairs are attended within 20 working days.

Complaints Procedure

10. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Stage one complaint responses will be issued within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, a complaint can be escalated to stage two. At stage two the complaint will be investigated by an independent team. A response will be issued within 20 working days.

Compensation Policy

11. The landlord’s policy states that compensation payments may be deemed necessary and appropriate to put a resident back in the position they would have been had it not been for the fault the landlord accepted or identified. It confirms that payments of compensation vary from case to case and the landlord does not provide specific guidance on precisely how much should be paid. Instead, it recommends considering the Ombudsman’s guidance to determine levels accordingly. The landlord offers discretionary payments for time, trouble, and distress.

Summary of events

12. The resident reported a leak coming from her bedroom ceiling on 6 October 2020. She advised the landlord that she believed the problem to be with the flat roof above the property (she confirmed that to access the flat roof the landlord needed to obtain a key from the security office). She added that water was dripping through the light fitting. The landlord sent an electrician who attended the following day to make the electrics safe.
13. On 8 October 2020, the resident requested an update from the landlord, following the electrician’s visit. The landlord confirmed that there were “no notes or report” following the electrician’s visit. It added that the resident had requested for the electrician not to isolate the bedroom light, as it would mean turning off the electrics in the entire flat.
14. The landlord arranged for Company A to attend the property on 13 November 2020, to conduct a roof inspection. A report was not provided to the landlord following the inspection.
15. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 29 December 2020 stating:

a.     The roof of the building had been leaking and damaging the bedroom ceiling since October.

b.     Company A attended the property on 13 November 2020, and informed her that it would consult with the landlord regarding the works. However, she had not received any update, since that visit, and further damage had been caused to her ceiling.

c.      To put things right, she wished for the landlord to fix the leak and repaint her ceiling using its buildings insurance.

16. The landlord called the resident on 7 January 2021, to confirm her complaint was being investigated.
17. On 8 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update about the roof works. She confirmed that a member of landlord staff had attended her property on 29 January 2021. However, he was unable to access the roof, as he did not bring the access key. She said that during the attendance, it was agreed that the landlord would hold weekly meetings with its contractor to monitor the case.
18. The landlord confirmed in an email to the resident on 9 February 2021, that it was awaiting confirmation of a date from Company B, who held the warranty for the block, to attend the site.
19. The resident sent follow up emails on 15, 17, 18 and 20 February 2021. The emails stated that:
    1. She wanted an urgent update on progress to repair the roof, after the landlord had confirmed that it would provide weekly updates during a conversation on 29 January 2021.
    2. She was aware that the landlord was having difficulty contacting Company B who held the warranty, however she failed to understand how an appointment had not been arranged.
    3. The landlord should arrange appropriate access to avoid further “undue delay.”
    4. Another resident on the top floor of the building had experienced water coming into their flat and she herself had noticed an increasing smell of damp.
    5. The repairs should be prioritised to prevent further, costly repairs, due to the “inaction” by the landlord.
20. On 23 February 2021, the landlord confirmed a joint inspection for 5 March 2021, with Company B. Following the visit, Company B confirmed:

a.     There was a product only warranty for the felt membrane which ended two years ago.

b.     It was “very unusual” to have a defect with the waterproofing installation, four years after the completion date.

c.      Another contractor had conducted waterproofing works which may have compromised the waterproofing product warranty.

d.     The communal leak appeared to be coming from the access hatch. Photos taken indicated the timber batten was rotting due to weather damage. It was recommended that the “original main contractor” was contacted regarding that problem.

e.     It had noticed that the brickwork around the outlet pipe had not been sealed properly which could allow rainwater to enter the building and therefore it strongly advised the perimeter around the pipe to be sealed effectively.

21. The landlord sent the resident an email on 9 March 2021, confirming it would arrange a further visit with Company B, for approximately two weeks’ time to “expose the green roof covering”. It added that an additional payment for labour would be required, however the cost of materials would be covered under the warranty.
22. The landlord authorised a “one off payment” to Company B, for the labour costs, to conduct an intrusive investigation and to carry out subsequent repairs, under the warranty.
23. Company B attended on 5 May 2021, to conduct the intrusive inspection and repair. After further investigation, it made the following findings and recommendations (not included within the landlord’s warranty):

a.     The waterproofing was in good condition, with no signs of deterioration, damage, or water ingress.

b.     Someone had attempted to apply black silicone mastic to the joint between the outlet and plastic spigot pipe. It suggested that there may be a leak from the spigot pipe and queried if other outlets had received remedial work that could cause the same problem. It suggested further assessment to confirm/rule out outlet issues.

c.      Plastic spigots protruding through the parapet walls were not fully sealed between the pipe and brickwork. The areas should be fully sealed as soon as possible to rule out any capillary issue.

d.     One of the principal areas of concern was the large gap between the stone coping and brick wall. It advised that the gap should have been sealed before the property was handed over. An operative applied a temporary silicone mastic seal, but it strongly recommended a full and weathering detail to eliminate any potential future water ingress.

e.     It noted with all historic and ongoing leak issues, the monitoring process was crucial to establish where the leaks were coming from. It suggested the resident monitor the ceiling directly below the leak area in case the damp patch expanded. If over the next few weeks there was no growth of the stain, it would have located the leak point between the brick work and stone coping.

24. The landlord and Company A attended the site on 21 May 2021, to consider the scope of works, including the recommendations which were made on 5 May 2021.
25. The resident sent an email on 28 June 2021, to advise the landlord that there were two further leaks in the bedroom. The landlord contacted Company B, who advised that it would require payment to reattend and expose the roof covering again.
26. On 2 July 2021, the landlord approved the works schedule as per the recommendations made on 5 May 2021.
27. The landlord issued a stage one response on 12 July 2021. It confirmed that:

a.     It was notified on 30 October 2020 of a leak in the property.

b.     Company A attended on 13 November 2020, to complete a roof inspection, but it did not receive a report on its findings following the visit.

c.      Following receipt of the complaint, the landlord contacted Company A, who advised that works were not carried out, as the block was a new build and should therefore be inspected by Company B, who held the warranty.

d.     Its new build repair team provided warranty details for the building.

e.     An inspection was booked for 29 January 2021. The surveyor identified a damp patch on the ceiling, but no leak was present. He was unable to access the roof area as he had not got the keys which he needed to obtain from the security office.

f.        Following liaison with the new build team, it concluded that the works should be carried out under the warranty, which was with Company B. However, it had experienced delays in arranging appointments with them.

g.     Company B failed to attend an arranged visit on 24 February 2021. A further visit was rearranged on 5 March 2021 which Company B attended. It advised that it needed to “expose the green roof covering” which would require an additional payment for labour, not covered under the warranty. This payment was not processed until 28 April 2021.

h.     Company B attended again on 5 May 2021. It received a report on 8 May 2021, confirming works completed, and made recommendations of further works which were not covered by the warranty.

i.        A joint visit was arranged on 21 May 2021 to review the recommendations in the report. A works schedule was sent on 11 June 2021 for the landlord to review. This was sent back to Company B, as there was a query regarding scaffolding costs. The works were approved on 2 July 2021.

j.        The resident confirmed new leaks on 28 June 2021 in two separate locations in the bedroom.

k.      It would be overseeing the works and would monitor the repairs through to completion. It advised that a named officer would update the resident on 16 July 2021.

l.        It apologised for the inconvenience and noted “extenuating circumstances” with regards to Covid-19 and a cyber-attack which took place in October 2020” which resulted in delays progressing repairs.

m.   It upheld the complaint noting that its communication and delays had been unacceptable and offered £560 compensation.

28. On 18 July 2021, the resident requested that her complaint was escalated for the following reasons:

a.     Despite assurances from the landlord that a named officer would make contact on 16 July 2021, she did not receive any communication.

b.     She asked for confirmation of what, if any contact the landlord had with LABC, to expedite the repair and recover the repair costs so that residents were not charged excessively in service charges.

c.      The damage had now affected both bedrooms, due to the delays. She noted having to place a bucket on the bed when it rained because water dripped through the light fitting. She stated that it was not only “disruptive” but an “electrical hazard.”

d.     The £560 compensation offer was rejected, as the repairs remained outstanding, but requested a breakdown as to how the compensation figure was calculated.

29. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 2 August 2021, following an unannounced visit by the landlord and Company A that day. She advised the following:

a.     It had identified four locations on the two-bedroom ceilings, affected by the leaking roof.

b.     The landlord confirmed scaffolding was due on 2 August 2021 to seal around the coping stone and drain hoppers.

c.      The landlord hoped Company B would reattend the week commencing 9 August 2021, to re-examine under the green roof, over the residents flat, to check work to the waterproof membrane again.

d.     The landlord confirmed payment issues to Company B had added to the delays.

e.     The landlord confirmed it had details of the LABC warranty, a 10-year warranty cover for the block. The warranty should cover the labour and material costs, but the landlord confirmed it was considering not using the LABC warranty cover, and using an alternative contractor to repair the roof, in the hope of minimising the delays, caused by its internal payment arrangements (its finance system limits one payment per year).

f.        The landlord discussed the validity of the roofing warranty and the LABC warranty if it used an alternative roofing contractor. She expressed concern regarding this and stated that it was important to ensure the validity of the LABC warranty, to protect the residents from inflated costs of repairs that may be needed in the future.

30. A stage two response was issued on 26 August 2021. The landlord said:

a.     It was aware that the named officer had not called on 16 July 2021, but another staff member had attempted to call, and subsequently left a voicemail, although it understood this was not received.

b.     It was trying to consult with the holders of the LABC warranty, to clarify the situation.

c.      A site visit was conducted on 2 August 2021, to review a temporary protection to the roof. However, this was not viable due to the roof layout and it should “press on and start repair action.”

d.     Scaffolding had been erected and work started on 12 August 2021 to action repairs to two rainwater outlets. It noted that it had to order a rainwater pipe that was “not an off the shelf size” but expected the item to be installed by 27 August 2021.

e.     While on site, Company B had started to expose the existing green roof covering but had to stop due to a suspected wasp’s nest within a tool storage unit. An appointment had been raised with environmental services for this issue to be addressed.

f.        It was also trying to secure an appointment with a specialist roofing and drainage company to obtain a second opinion on the defects to the roof. This would be at no charge to leaseholders.

g.     It confirmed that the £560 was calculated as:

1. £50 for the right to repair for failing to resolve the leak in the priority time set for a repair.
2. £360 for 36 weeks at £10 per week, for the continued issue of the failure to resolve the issue to the bedroom.
3. £150 for the time and trouble caused.

h.     It would keep the resident updated on progress regarding contact with LABC warranty.

i.        It apologised for the frustration and distress the delay in dealing with the matter has caused. It confirmed that the overall communication regarding the works had been unacceptable.

j.        The resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied, and details of how to do this were provided.

31. The landlord confirmed in an internal email on 9 September 2021 that it had spoken with LABC warranty, who confirmed that repair actions undertaken to date did not invalidate its cover. They advised the landlord that if a warranty existed (which the landlord confirmed it did) it should pursue the warranty with that provider. LABC warranty confirmed that any claim would be subject to a £10,000 excess payment. The landlord confirmed this to the resident in an email the same day.
32. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 September 2021. She said:

a.     She wished for the landlord to clarify what the excess was as £10,000 was contrary to the website which states excess for structural cover is £1000.

b.     The roofing works appeared incomplete and the gap between the stone coping and parapet wall had not been sealed (the resident attached photos).

c.      Repair works included extending one of the downpipes, but the materials and workmanship was of “an inferior standard.” The resident requested confirmation that it was a temporary fix until a bespoke part arrived.

d.     She wished for the landlord to confirm that the lightning conductor material would be replaced.

e.     Many other areas of the roof remained exposed which appeared inconsistent with the works being completed. Confirmation was requested as to when the works would be finished.

33. An independent inspection survey was conducted on 30 September 2021. The surveyor noted the weather was “dry and cool.” A moisture measurement system (MMS) was used to record the moisture levels within the flat. The surveyor noted that moisture readings in the bedroom were found to be “acceptably dry.” The surveyor noted the concrete coping stones provided a “vulnerable route” for the rainwater to penetrate. Following the inspection, the surveyor made the following recommendations:

a.     To remove existing coping stones and relay with new to overhang the parapet by 25-35mm, diverting the rainwater from back tracking into the substrate of the parapet walls.

b.     To properly reseal with connection between the rainwater drainpipe and the drainage gully.

c.      To undertake redecoration works following the completion of the works (subject to terms set out in the lease agreement).

34. On 6 October 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had attempted to clarify its position with LABC, on whether its policy covered the present issue. It stated that the response was “not completely clear” and would submit a claim to LABC and await its reply.
35. On 21 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to flag two further areas of roof leaks. She stated rainwater was coming through the bedroom ceiling again and it was beginning to show cracks. She sent the landlord pictures.

Events after internal complaints process completed

36. On 10 November 2021, the resident confirmed to this Service that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response because:

a.     The roof repair remained outstanding.

b.     There was a lack of communication and updates from the landlord, requiring her to spend a significant amount of time chasing progress.

c.      The landlord failed to provide a timescale in which it would complete works.

37. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 July 2022, after reviewing the original compensation offer. It confirmed that a temporary repair was carried out on 12 November 2021, and since no further reports of water ingress. Works to make the temporary repair permanent were started on 20 June 2022.
38. It recalculated the compensation to amount for a period of 54 weeks from 30 October 2020, until 12 November 2021, to a total sum of £540. It recalculated the time and trouble and increased the sum to £225. It confirmed that the repairs would not be recharged to the residents through their service charges. The total sum offered was £815.
39. The resident asked if the landlord would increase its offer of compensation to reflect that the leak was reported on 6 October 2020, three weeks earlier than the landlord accounted for (a total of 57 weeks), plus cover the cost of the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR), following the leak. The total compensation requested was £1040. The landlord agreed to the amount requested.
40. In correspondence with this Service, the resident confirmed that the landlord paid the above compensation, however, requested this Service to investigate whether it was an appropriate amount, in the circumstances. The resident has confirmed that the roof works were completed on 24 June 2022. She has since moved from the property.

Assessment and findings

41. For leasehold properties, the relationship between the landlord and resident is contractual, and the terms of the lease will determine who is responsible for what. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the arrangement of the repairs to the roof, under the obligations set out within the lease agreement. Therefore, the landlord was expected to investigate the cause of the leak, and complete any follow-on works, as necessary.
42. New build properties have a ‘defects period,’ where the original builder is responsible for repairing certain issues; this period usually lasts between 12 months to two years, after the date the property was handed over to the landlord. Once the defects period has ended, any repairs will usually be conducted under the warranty. In this case, the resident’s property was still under warranty and the landlord took the appropriate decision to achieve the repairs via the original contractors.
43. During the period where a warranty remains in place, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to act as an appropriate intermediary. This would include coordinating matters between relevant contractors and the resident, to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed, and completed to a satisfactory standard.
44. Where roof repairs are concerned, and where there is a significant impact on the resident, the landlord would be expected to proactively pursue the works, as well as consider alternative solutions, where the resolution was being prolonged.
45. The evidence shows that a roof inspection was conducted on 13 November 2020, by an independent contractor, 38 days after the leak was reported by the resident. The landlord’s published repair timeframes for leaseholders confirm that routine/normal repairs should be attended within 20 working days. The landlord did not meet the standards that it sets out within its policy and failed to provide the resident with a reason for the delay in investigating, or provide an update during that period, to manage her expectations.
46. Following the roof inspection, the landlord failed to update the resident with its findings. As a result, the resident submitted a complaint in December 2020. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not update the resident following the inspection, and was only prompted to follow up, after receiving the resident’s complaint. This does not demonstrate that the landlord took a proactive approach in satisfying itself, and the resident that it had traced the leak. The resident was caused unnecessary time and delay, in chasing the matter.
47. Following this, the landlord advised the resident on 29 January 2021, that it would hold weekly meetings with its contactor, so that the matter could be expedited. The evidence does not show that such meetings were held, or that the resident was kept updated. This was inappropriate, and a further failing by the landlord to be proactive in the handling of its repairs. As the resident had not received any updates, she was left pursuing the matter during February 2021. This was the cause of further inconvenience and could have been avoided, if the landlord had done what it said it was going to.
48. In its correspondence in February 2021, the landlord confirmed that the property was under a warranty and therefore it was trying to contact the original roofing contractor, responsible for inspecting and undertaking the works. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this, considering the warranty in place. However, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations during this time or give an indication on how long the process could take, given the limitations posed by its contractual relationship. The lack of engagement on the landlord’s part was unsatisfactory, and this Service is not satisfied that the landlord demonstrated an urgency to resolve the leak, or that it took a robust approach to ensure that its contractors completed the repairs.
49. The original roofing contractors completed an inspection on 5 March 2021, five months after the leak was reported by the resident. This was an unreasonable delay; a result of the landlord failing to take ownership of the situation or engage effectively with the resident. The lack of communication on the landlord’s part is concerning and will undoubtedly have exacerbated an already protracted situation for the resident. The landlord has not shown that it considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident during this time, or the potential ongoing damage caused to the property.
50. Despite the inspections in March and May 2021, the landlord was unable to obtain a clear diagnosis as to the cause of the leak. While it is evident that a temporary mastic seal was applied during the May visit, it was clear from the contractor “strongly recommending” further remedial works, that this was not a permanent fix. It is noted that the landlord conducted its own visit to assess the scope of works on 21 May 2021, which was to satisfy itself that the schedule was satisfactory. It is acknowledged that the landlord may have considered that a further inspection was necessary. However, the delay from inspection, to approving the works was a further eight weeks. The Ombudsman has not considered this to be an example taking proactive action.
51. Subsequently, the resident reported two further leaks in June 2021, to which the landlord provided assurances in its stage one response, on 2 July 2021 that it would “oversee” and “monitor repairs through to completion”. Despite its assurances, evidence does not show that it did this effectively. This resulted in the resident chasing the matter.
52. In issuing its stage two response in August 2021, the landlord appropriately apologised for not communicating with the resident in a timely manner. It provided further assurance to the resident that it would be overseeing and monitoring the works through to completion. However, the resident reported that the repairs completed were “of an inferior standard” and areas of the roof had remained “exposed.” In expressing her concern, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect itself and agree to raise it with its contractors. The evidence is unclear as to whether the landlord discussed the standard of works with its contractors, or provided the resident with explanations. This would have been particularly important for the resident, particularly considering the longstanding issues she had experienced.
53. Despite the ongoing leaks, the evidence indicates that the landlord did not consider a temporary fix until a site visit in August 2021. At this point, it determined that a temporary fix was not “viable,” and it should “press on and start repair” action. However, this did not happen and subsequently, the resident reported further leaks in October 2021, which she said had caused cracks to her ceilings. At this point, the landlord should have given greater consideration to the disruption caused, and identified, what, if any temporary fixes could be made. In doing so, it would have been able to satisfy itself and the resident that all options had been considered, particularly as the resolution to the leak was prolonged.
54. It is noted that the landlord was concerned about the possibility of interim works invalidating its warranty. However, the evidence does not show that the landlord made enquiries in relation to this promptly. Despite being aware of the leak in October 2020, and knowing that the cover was in place, the landlord first contacted LABC in September 2021. The delay was inappropriate and had the landlord made contact sooner, it may have allowed it to consider other options in terms of interim works. This was a failing in its handling of the matter.
55. The landlord encountered problems in contacting its original contractors, and this Service understands the “extenuating circumstances” which impacted on its repair completion times. It confirmed that a cyber-attack took place in October 2020, which resulted in a backlog of delays, which was beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord also confirmed delays because of its internal payment processes, as well as a further delay of two months in the landlord approving the works schedule. There is insufficient evidence to explain why these delays were so significant. Overall, the landlord failed to manage the leak in line within its obligations, which is an example of maladministration by the landlord, and this has been taken into account, when considering levels of compensation for the overall distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
56. Despite multiple visits to the property by the landlord, contractors, and surveyors, the leak was not resolved until June 2022. The lack of an effective resolution over approximately 20 months, is evidence of a failure in the service provided by the landlord, which meant the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time pursuing the repairs. As well as having to chase the landlord excessively for a response or update, the resident also had to be available for several appointments, inspections and works. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord attempted to recognise the resident’s inconvenience with compensation for the time and trouble experienced. It offered a sum of compensation, which the resident rejected at stage two. The resident queried whether the landlord would agree to increase its compensation offer, which it did on 1 September 2022.
57. The landlord’s compensation policy follows the approach of this Service, as set out in the remedies guidance. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) provides for awards of £1000 + where the Ombudsman has found significant failures that accumulated over a significant period, exacerbating the impact on the resident.
58. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s request and demonstrates a willingness to try to put things right. Despite proposing, and accepting compensation, the resident requested this Service considered whether the compensation was too high or too low. It is clear that despite proposing an amount, using the landlords formula, the resident remained doubtful that the figure did in fact put right all that had gone wrong. This Service has found that, given the extent of the failings, it did not.
59. Not only were the landlord’s efforts to carry out the necessary repairs delayed, but it repeatedly failed to respond to the resident or provide the resident with meaningful updates which impacted on the enjoyment of the property, over a protracted period. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made further orders, which are proportionate to the failings identified within this report.

Complaint Handling

60. The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 December 2020. The landlord issued its stage one response on 12 July 2021, 135 working days after the resident submitted her complaint. The landlord confirmed “extenuating circumstances” with the Covid-19 pandemic, and a cyber-attack in October 2020, as reasons for the delays. However, even taking this into account, the landlord’s response to the complaint departed significantly from the 10-working day timeframe, set out in its complaints procedure and the impact of this was not sufficiently recognised in its complaint response.
61. The stage two response was issued 8 working days outside of the landlord’s 20-working day period, as detailed within its complaints policy. It appropriately offered an apology for the distress and inconvenience caused in resolving the matter, as well as acknowledging that the communication regarding ongoing works had been unacceptable. The landlord appropriately considered the time and trouble caused to the resident because of the delay in repairs, however further consideration should have been given to the distress and inconvenience, as well as frustration caused because of the delays in issuing complaint responses.
62. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary payments which include, time, trouble, and distress, where warranted. Therefore, for the failings identified within the complaint handling, a further compensation payment has been awarded due to the cumulative impact the delays had on the resident.
63. Within its stage one response, the landlord appropriately offered the resident compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing repairs. However, it was unclear how the landlord had reached this figure and when escalating her complaint, the resident asked if a breakdown could be provided. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided a breakdown when the compensation was initially offered. Doing so would have helped to demonstrate how it had decided on the figure and what elements it had taken into consideration. As it did not, the resident had to seek further clarification on how the landlord had arrived at that figure. Nonetheless, it is recognised that when requested, this was provided.
64. The landlord’s stage one response failed to appropriately set out its position in relation to the ongoing works or give the resident any indication of when the work would be complete. In line the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord is required to confirm details of outstanding actions and identify remedies to put things right within its complaint response. As the landlord failed to provide the resident with such information, she felt that the landlord lacked urgency and accountability in resolving the matter. There was also uncertainty about what would be happening next and when. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order to prevent similar errors from occurring in the future and to help the landlord improve in this area.

Determination (decision)

65. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding:

a.     The landlord’s handling of, and communication about, the repairs to the roof.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

66. There was a significant failure to respond to and resolve the resident’s leak within a reasonable amount of time. While the Ombudsman appreciates the constraints imposed on the landlord by third parties, it still had a responsibility to support the resident, manage the resident’s expectations, and actively seek a resolution. The landlord did not fully acknowledge the inconvenience caused because of its lack of clarity and communication surrounding the repairs.
67. The landlord did appropriately reconsider its offer of compensation, after the works had been completed, however, the offer was not proportionate to all the failings identified in this case, and in considering the impact caused to the resident.
68. The landlord departed significantly from the response times detailed in its complaints policy. It subsequently failed to acknowledge this or put right some of the inconvenience that the resident had been caused as a result. In addition, when responding to the complaint, the landlord failed to confirm what action it would be taking next and overall failed to recognise the impact that its handling of the situation had on the resident.

Orders

69. The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:

a.     Apologise for the failings identified within this report.

b.     Pay the resident further compensation of £600, consisting of:

i.        £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the leak.

ii.      £200 for the adverse effect caused by its failures in communication with regards to the leak.

iii.     £200 for the adverse effect caused by the failures identified within its complaint handling.

c.      Carry out a review of this case, considering the failings set out in this report which relate to the oversight and management of repairs, and review what improved processes and/or training of staff will be implemented in relation to:

1. Ensuring that residents are kept updated with progress on repairs.
2. Situations where delays occur with its contractors, and how it will reduce the risk of a reoccurrence in the future.

d.     Provide guidance to relevant staff about investigating and responding to complaints. It is recommended, particularly in relation to cases involving repairs, that the response sets out the outstanding issues and provides remedies offered to put things right. The landlord should ensure that staff are reminded to suitably update residents, where necessary, throughout the complaints process. The landlord should incorporate the Code where appropriate.