Stonewater Limited (202122462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122462

Stonewater Limited

1 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress and the repairs it carried out to remedy this.
2. The landlord’s handling of internal repairs to the property required to rectify damage caused by the water ingress.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner of a two bedroom flat on the second floor of a block of flats.
The development of the property was completed and handed over to the landlord in 2011. The end of defects inspection was completed on 13 June 2012. The resident purchased the property on 4 February 2015.
Following the resident’s purchase of the property the landlord carried out works to replace the glazing within the double glazed windows of the property as the seals had failed and the internal panes had misted up. This work was completed in November 2016 when the final window was repaired.
The resident has confirmed to this Service that these works did not include the replacement of the window frames.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The lease agreement

The resident’s occupation of and obligations regarding the property are covered by the lease agreement she entered into on 4 February 2015. The lease defines the property, within the context of the lease, as “the premises.”
Schedule 1 of the lease provides a definition of the premises as:

“The flat on the second floor of the building shown edged in red on the plan extending from the underside of the ceiling immediately above the premises to the upper side of any floor to the premises (…) and extending laterally to the inner face of any solid wall bounding the premises (…) excluding:

the walls bounding the premises.
all structural walls and pillars within the premises.
all structural joists and floor slabs within the premises.
all service installations within the premises which do not serve the premises exclusively.
the balcony (if any).

But including:

the plaster and other finishes on the inside of the walls bounding the premises and on the faces of all load bearing walls and pillars wholly within the premises.
all ceilings and other finishes applied to the ceilings immediately above the premises and (if any) any floorboards or other floor finished within the premises.
the doors (except for the external surfaces …).
windows of the premises (including glass) and the internal and external surface of the window frames and (if any) window furniture (including locks catches hitches and stays) and sash cords.
the whole of non-load bearing walls or partitions within the premises.
all service installations laid within any part of building or the premises and which serve the premises exclusively.
all fixtures and fittings in or about the premises (other than the tenant’s fixtures and fittings) and not hereinafter expressly excluded.
the parking space.
the loft space (if any).
the garden (if any).”

The resident’s lease specifies the following:
1. Clause 3.4 Repair: the leaseholder “to keep, from time to time, and at all times during the term, the premises (excluding the parking space) clean and well and substantially repaired and maintained (except in respect of damage by risks insured under clause 5.2…).
2. Clause 3.8 Not to alter: the leaseholder is not to make any alterations or additions to the exterior of the premises.
The lease specifies the landlord’s repair obligations under clause 5.3 headed “repair redecorate renew structure” and sets out:

“Subject to clause 5.5 (landlord’s protection provisions) and to payment of the specified rent and service charges the landlord shall cleanse maintain repair redecorate renew and (in the event of the landlord’s reasonable opinion such works as required) improve:

a) The load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building, the roof, foundations, joists, external walls (including all balconies, if any) of the building and service media and machinery and plant within (but not exclusively serving) the premises, and all parts of the building which are not the responsibility of the tenant under this lease or of any other tenant under a similar lease of other premises in the building.

b) The service media cisterns and tanks and other gas electrical drainage ventilation and water apparatus and machinery in under or upon the building (…).

c) The building common parts and the estate common parts.”

The landlord’s repairs policy

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy advises that “leasehold customers are responsible for all repairs inside their home and the landlord is responsible for all external repairs to the structure.”
The landlord’s website provides further advice on repair responsibilities for shared owners of flats as follows:

“As your landlord, we’re generally responsible for keeping the structure and outside of your home and block in a good state of repair. The exact details of our responsibilities will be detailed in your lease. Here’s a few examples:

The roof
Outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window frames (but often not the glass in the windows), including necessary painting and decoration.
Outside drains, gutters, and pipes.
Pathways, steps, or other access routes.
Shared entrances, stairways, halls, and passageways.
Estate and block lighting.
Lifts.
Rubbish chutes, bins, or other facilities for storing rubbish.
Shared aerials.

This also provides advice to shared owners on structural faults. This explains that after the defect’s liability period has ended, residents may be able to claim the cost of repairs against the National House Building Council (NHBC) cover. “The NHBC policy covers the property for some items for 10 years from the date your property was built.”

The landlord’s new home defects guide

The new home defects guide provided by the landlord informs shared owners that “once the defects period comes to an end you will be responsible for any repairs to your property including the service of your boiler.”
Latent defects are defined within this guide. It advises that:

“There are occasions where it is not possible to detect a defect until many years after completion, long after the end of the defect’s liability period. These are known as latent defects.”

This guide explains the NHBC warranty and advises that NHBC will pay the cost of or carry out remedial works for issues covered by the policy if the cost exceeds the minimum claim value.

The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a two stage complaint procedure. Both stages have a target of 10 working days. Responses at stage two should be approved by a head of service.
This procedure references compensation at point 3.6.2 and sets out that “compensation should be fair and proportionate and accurately reflect the extent of the service failure and the detriment to the customer.”
The landlord’s compensation policy describes that it “is designed to provide a framework that allows for the consistent justifiable and transparent decision making in circumstances when paying compensation is appropriate.”
The policy provides a framework that establishes the type of customer who can benefit from compensation in certain circumstances.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 21 November 2018 to report water ingress through all her windows. She said that she believed that the seals to the windows may be broken and asked the landlord to inspect.
The landlord responded on 22 November 2018 and said:

“As a Leaseholder or Shared Ownership resident you are responsible for all internal repairs within the property, so we will not be able to carry out these repairs for you. We are only responsible for repairs to the communal and external areas. For maintenance enquiries, please check the terms of your lease, as this will indicate what you are responsible for and outline the responsibilities of the landlord.”

The resident responded on 22 November 2018 and said that she understood that she was responsible for internal repairs. However, she believed that the external walls and roof should be inspected. She stated that the leak was quite severe “especially now, during the wet months accompanied by strong winds.”
The matter was passed to the landlord’s repairs surveyor on 26 November 2018, and an external inspection was carried out on 5 December 2018. As the resident was not at home when the surveyor visited, a telephone message was left for her asking her to call to discuss the matter further. As the surveyor did not leave his direct contact details, the resident sent messages via a central email box, in response to the voice message, on 6 and 11 December 2018.
On 17 March 2019, the resident sent a follow up email on this matter as no inspection had been carried out and the problem was worsening. She reported cracking to the walls in her flat and that the holes were getting bigger each time it rained. She stated that “water is pouring inside the rooms, leaking onto the floor and damaging my property.” She went on to advise that she believed that this was an external issue to be repaired and that this was the responsibility of the landlord. This email suggests that there had been previous contact between the resident and the surveyor as she opened with “I take that you have not heard anything back from the development team.” However, from the evidence that is available, it is unclear what this was in relation to.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 March 2019, following a visit to the property. Within this, it said:
1. The developer would not cover the issue of the water ingress, owing to the length of time that had passed.
2. The resident had the benefit of an NHBC policy, and she should contact it directly to investigate.
Records provided by the landlord show that it was contacted by NHBC on 11 June 2019 and that forms were completed and returned by the landlord on 13 June 2019.
On 26 June 2019 NHBC emailed the landlord. It advised that it had been contacted by the resident about water ingress into her property. NHBC was seeking permission from the landlord to investigate the matter. It requested details of a point of contact at the landlord, confirmation of its authority to investigate and confirmation that the resident should be the main point of contact.
The landlord’s records show that verbal approval was given on 10 July 2019.
On 31 July 2019 NHBC made a request for a member of the landlord’s staff to accompany its representative on an inspection of the resident’s property. The matter was referred to one of landlord’s surveyors to action on 30 September 2019.
The landlord responded to the written communication from NHBC on 30 September 2019 and asked to be copied into all future communication relating to the claim.
NHBC undertook an inspection of the property and provided a report as to its findings on 18 October 2019. This report identified that there was evidence of water ingress to the lounge and main bedroom windows. To address this the report made recommendations for works to be carried out within the resident’s property.
The report advised that “to repair the damage, the windows in the bedroom and lounge will need to be removed, this will require an external scaffold to access both windows, and a cavity tray will be required to prevent water tracking under the windows.” It advised that “the lease confirms that the windows are considered to be a common part of the building.” Based on its recommendations and the costs for these works the resident’s claim was rejected as falling below the combined policy excess threshold for the building.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 October 2019 seeking advice as to the next steps. She chased it on 30 October 2019 having received no response to her initial enquiry.
The landlord’s internal email exchanges show that it received confirmation from NHBC on or around 5 November 2019 that the problem with water ingress stemmed from poor installation of the windows to the property.
The landlord’s surveyor contacted the resident on 14 November 2019 to arrange a visit to the property to discuss with her the next steps. As the resident advised she was unavailable due to work commitments, the landlord emailed her on 15 November. Within this it:
1. Confirmed that it had all the relevant NHBC reports and photographs.
2. Explained that it was tendering the works to contractors and once completed would arrange a meeting with the resident and the appointed contractor.
3. Further explained that this would, at the earliest, be in January 2020.
The landlord contacted NHBC on 29 November 2019 to request further information. This was so that it could undertake the works recommended within its report.
On 3 December 2019, the landlord confirmed that it had completed the tender process for the works and a contractor had been appointed. A meeting was scheduled for 6 January 2020 and the contractor was instructed on 11 January 2020. Plans were put in place to erect scaffolding on 6 April 2020 and to commence the works once in place.
On 23 March 2020, following the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government announced the first nationwide lockdown in the United Kingdom. As Covid-19 restrictions came into force, the resident emailed the landlord on 26 March 2020 to find out what the next steps were in relation to the planned works. The landlord responded to advise that the contractor was happy to proceed with the works with the resident’s approval.
However, on 28 March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid-19 pandemic. The guidance recommended that “access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent repairs.”
In agreement with the resident on 30 March 2020, the works were postponed. In her email to the landlord the resident asked that these be postponed “until late summer/September time”. The resident asked if the landlord could provide alternative dates for when the works could commence. The landlord confirmed that it would be back in touch when more information was available.
On 1 June 2020, the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid-19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 June 2020 seeking an update as to when the works could begin. She chased the matter by telephone on 7 and 12 August 2020. The landlord’s surveyor called on 14 August 2020 to advise that he was looking into the works required. The resident emailed on 6 September 2020 again seeking an update.
Following his return to work following a period of furlough, the landlord’s surveyor, who had previously dealt with this matter, responded to the resident on 15 September 2020. He agreed to check with the contractor to ensure that it was “Covid safe.” On 15 October 2020, the landlord updated the resident to advise that it had requested the contractor to provide a Covid-19 risk assessment.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 November 2020 to arrange another visit to the property with the appointed contractor following changes in its personnel. This was carried out on 17 November 2020.
On 15 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as the works were due to start in March 2021 and she was hoping to know the exact start date. The landlord confirmed on 16 February 2021 that it had instructed the contractor to proceed. In a follow up email, the resident asked what the works would entail.
In response, the landlord said:

“We have had many surveyors and contractors stating they do not think that what the NHBC report has requested will solve your issues, so we have decided to break the works into parts, the first part booked in with you, is to replace the seals and some glazing units. We will then monitor the results, and see if successful, if not then we will go to second stage, which means taking the three windows out.”

Between 22 February 2021 and 31 October 2021, the resident and landlord were in regular contact about the works and the extent of what was being carried out. Some of the glass units and seals were replaced in February 2021 and the resident was asked to see if this stopped the water ingress. In June 2021 she reported that there was water still leaking through the other windows that had not been replaced. Works to these windows appear to have been completed in September 2021. The contractor was also to arrange for follow up decoration work to be carried out within the resident’s flat.
On 31 October 2021, the resident reported that water was still entering the property.
On 8 November 2021, the resident received an email from the contractor. It said:
1. It had spoken to the window company who had undertaken the works on its behalf. It explained that “all works were completed exactly as we had previously agreed, to replace all the gaskets and then to seal the bottom bead with silicone on reinstatement, as an added precaution.”
2. This had worked up until the particularly bad weather of very heavy rain and high winds.
3. From the beginning it was considered that the location of the flat and its windows could be a contributing factor. This was because the windows received any bad weather face on.
4. “In essence the drainage to any window allows for a normal amount of weather but if the weather falls outside of these parameters the drainage is overwhelmed. Add in the wind and the very water that it is trying to expel can be pushed back into the window and leaks internally. The photographs provided by the resident seem to support this view as the water is on top of the windowsill.”
Within this email the contractor advised the landlord that it did not know what more it could do at that point, without knowing the design of the windows and how they were fitted.
The landlord responded on the same date. It acknowledged the issues highlighted and noted that “it had some issue with the corner windows, which had to be replaced completely.” It asked the contractor to provide a quote for a complete window replacement.
No evidence of further communication with the resident about the replacement of or repairs to the windows has been provided, and the resident has confirmed that no further works have been carried out since the email on 8 November 2021.
The resident contacted this Service on 8 January 2022 to raise concerns about the lack of response from her landlord.
As the landlord had not considered this matter as a formal complaint, we provided the resident with information on how to make a complaint. We also wrote to the landlord to advise that the resident had been in touch with this Service and that she would be raising a formal complaint. We provided details of the complaint, and asked if the landlord could ensure that it had contacted the resident no later than 27 January 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 January 2022 acknowledging her complaint.
A stage one response was sent to the resident on 2 February 2022. This provided information as to the action taken by the landlord to resolve a leak from the roof, which had caused damage within the communal areas of the resident’s block. The landlord’s response related to a leak in the hallway outside the property, that had been raised in September 2019. This was not the complaint that the resident had intended to raise through and with this Service.
On 24 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two. She said that her original complaint was not about a leak in the hallway outside the flat, but about a leak inside her flat, through the damaged windows and wall. Within this email to the landlord, she set out the background to her complaint.
The landlord responded on 19 April 2022 and apologised for the misunderstanding. It advised that as this was a different issue this matter should be raised as a new complaint. The resident rejected this suggestion and asked again for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. On 3 May 2022, the landlord advised that this could not be escalated to stage two as this was a separate issue to that considered at stage one.
The resident remained in contact with this Service and through the intervention of the Ombudsman, the landlord agreed to accept a stage two complaint from the resident on 16 September 2022.
A formal stage two response was provided on 28 September 2022. This focused on two areas of complaint.
1. The roof leak into the communal area that had been picked up and addressed at stage one.
2. Cracks to the walls by the windows in the flat following works undertaken by the landlord’s contractor.
In addressing the second complaint the letter advised that:
1. The glazed window unit was replaced in November 2016 and that this was picked up as part of the end of defects work.
2. As this was a shared ownership home, the landlord would not undertake repairs inside the property. This would be the responsibility of the shared owner.
3. “I can see that you contacted us previously to state that the wall was being held together with tape following work being done. We are not aware of what work this isand can only presume it is work undertaken by NHBC and not ourselves.”
4. The landlord had not undertaken any works to temporarily repair or replace the windows since the work conducted in 2016.
5. All repairs to the property were the responsibility of the leaseholder, and this was reflected within the lease. This included plasterwork, windows, and redecoration.
6. The only issues it had dealt with recently were those in relation to the roof, which were completed in 2021.
The landlord apologised that the resident had been left chasing updates and made an offer of £150 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident contacted this Service on 29 September 2022 to express her dissatisfaction with the stage two response from the landlord and expressed her concern that it had not recognised the works that had been conducted through 2021.
The Ombudsman began to investigate this complaint in April 2023 and contacted the landlord for further information. In response the landlord advised that it had reviewed its complaint responses. In doing so it acknowledged that the details contained within its stage two response were incorrect and it provided details of the steps it now intended to take.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 April 2023. This letter set out the following:
1. An acknowledgement that it took a long time to progress the matter with NHBC and to undertake the works that followed on.
2. An outline of the works that had been carried out during 2021 and acknowledgement that this element had been missed from its stage two investigation.
3. Confirmation that a quote had been requested to replace the windows, but this was not progressed. Through further investigations it had determined that the replacement of the windows would not resolve the issue of water ingress. It advised that “the drains installed in all the windows by the manufacturer are working as they should. The problem arises in extreme weather when they become overwhelmed by the volume and direction of rain.”
4. It offered an apology to the resident.
5. That it would make arrangements to undertake a property inspection and discuss the matters around the root cause of the water ingress with the resident.
6. Recognition of the need to better manage complex and long running complaints and advised that it was introducing system changes to address this. The landlord also expressed its wish to speak with the resident to understand where it could improve and work to rebuild its relationship with her.
7. Compensation of £1,300 was offered, broken down as follows:
  1. £250 in acknowledgement of its failure at stage two to fully investigate and address the issue regarding the windows.
  2. £750 for its failure to carry out works to address the damage to internal decoration, following completion of the works to the windows in 2021.
  3. £300 for poor communication, increasing the original offer of £150 made at stage one.
On receiving this letter, the resident contacted this Service. She advised that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response; particularly in relation to its refusal to replace the whole windows. She further stated that throughout the process she felt that it had shown a lack of empathy and willingness to resolve the issue in a timely manner. She had declined the landlord’s offer of compensation as she believed that this was insufficient given the length of time that had elapsed since she first reported this issue. On 8 May 2023, the resident said that she was awaiting arrangement of the further inspection promised by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress and the repairs it carried out to remedy this

The resident first raised an issue of water ingress into her property on 21 November 2018. Initial advice from the landlord was that this was her responsibility to repair. It then agreed to arrange an inspection and referred the matter to its surveyor. It is unclear when the full inspection was completed, but this appears to have been on or around 20 March 2019, some four months after the resident’s first report to the landlord. While it is acknowledged that as a leaseholder the resident had a level of responsibility for repairs to her property, as she had raised her concerns that the exterior and roof of the building were contributing to the water ingress, it was inappropriate that the landlord delayed its inspection.
Following this inspection, the resident was advised that she should make a claim with NHBC. It is not clear why this advice was not provided earlier. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been aware that the initial defect period for the property had ended, so there would be no call back on the original developer.
Following contact from NHBC to arrange a joint inspection of the property, the evidence provided indicates that there was a lack of clarity internally as to which department would be responsible for responding to and overseeing the claim. There was a two month delay before this was passed to the relevant surveyor and it was a further month before the NHBC inspection was carried out.
On receipt of the report from NHBC there appears again to have been significant internal discussions around how to proceed with the works recommended and to establish how the costs of these works would be met. The landlord did acknowledge the need to find a resolution to this issue for the resident.
With greater clarity around roles and responsibility, the resident could have been provided with advice about progressing her claim with NHBC at an earlier stage and seen swifter action by the landlord in its contact with and action taken following the report by NHBC. This could have prevented the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by these avoidable delays.
Agreement was reached to appoint a contractor and the tender process was concluded on 3 December 2019, just over a year after the resident first reported the issue of water ingress into her property. The contractor was appointed to undertake the works proposed by NHBC. Following a pre-site meeting in January 2020, the works were scheduled to start with the building of a scaffold planned for 6 April 2020.
It is unfortunate that these works were then postponed due to the restrictions imposed through the first national lockdown due to Covid-19 in March 2020. There were then delays in restarting the works as Covid-19 restrictions eased, initially due to the landlord’s surveyor being furloughed and then changes to personnel at the contractor.
NHBC advised the landlord that the water ingress was because of poor installation of the windows into the property. This view and the proposed resolution seems to have been rejected by the landlord. It took the decision not to undertake the works recommended by NHBC but to break the works down into parts and monitor the results. It does however appear to have accepted that there was a latent defect within the building, noting similar issues with other windows within the building.
The works undertaken failed to remedy the water ingress into the resident’s property, with her reporting this to the landlord on 31 October 2021. Through communication on 8 November 2021 the resident was left with the view that neither the contractor nor the landlord knew what the next steps were to be taken.
While the landlord did seek a quote for new windows to be manufactured and installed, this does not appear to have been communicated with the resident and all contact between the resident, landlord and contractor appears to have ceased. In contact with this Service and in raising her complaint, the resident reported that water ingress continued into the property.
The landlord informed the resident and this Service in April 2023 that it would not be replacing the windows, as it did not believe that this would resolve the water ingress into the property. It advised that “the issue occurs during extreme weather, where prevailing winds and driving rain directly affect the elevation where the matter is prominent.” It has advised that this decision is based on its further investigations with window manufacturers and its contractors.
While it would be reasonable for the landlord to rely on such advice, it has provided no evidence that this was based on an inspection of the property and the windows, or if further consideration had been given to the original recommendations made by NHBC. It is also not clear why this decision was not made in consultation with the resident and why it was not made sooner. Furthermore, it is unclear why communication with the resident ceased at the beginning of November 2021, when it appeared to be taking steps towards replacing the windows. This cessation of contact between the landlord and the resident was inappropriate and indicates a lack of ownership and poor management of the works to the property.
In its communication with the resident in April 2023 the landlord has offered £300 compensation in recognition of its poor communication round the repair, noting the delays in following up on the recommendation from NHBC and in progressing the subsequent works. It has advised that it is making system changes to manage complex and long running complaints better, to provide greater visibility, automated prompts for follow up and improved record keeping. It did not however acknowledge the cessation in its contact with the resident and it has also not considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the extended delays. The level of compensation offered is not proportionate to the level of inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s own compensation guidance states that “compensation should be fair and proportionate and accurately reflect the extent of the service failure and the detriment to the customer.” Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and the circumstances of the complaint, the Ombudsman has ordered a more fitting sum of compensation, aimed at putting things right.

The landlord’s handling of internal repairs to the property required to rectify damage caused by the water ingress

There was no follow up with the resident to undertake the internal repairs and decorations promised. The contractor was due to arrange an appointment following completion of the works in September 2021. It is possible that this was held back while the landlord ensured that the issue of water ingress had been resolved. However, having first reported the issue in November 2018 the resident had been left living with the signs of water damage in her property, and following the NHBC inspection, tape on her walls covering damage caused by the removal of the windowsills.
Following a final email to the resident on 8 November 2021, almost two years after her first report, there was no further contact with her. No evidence has been provided that the resident made contact directly with the landlord following this final email, although she has raised the ongoing water ingress and outstanding repairs through her complaint.
The resident has suffered significant detriment through the landlord’s failure to act in a timely manner and through its failure to continue to pursue a resolution to the problem of water ingress and address the related repairs inside the property. There is clear maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this overall issue.
The landlord has made an offer of £750 compensation in recognition of its failure to carry out works to address damaged decoration within the property.It has not however, provided a plan for when the required works will be undertaken, and the issue remains unresolved almost four years after the inspection by NHBC. In recognition of the lack of a forward plan to resolve this issue and the length of time that it has been outstanding, an increased offer of compensation has been ordered.
The landlord is also encouraged to consider further reviewing this level of compensation on completion of all repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident contacted this Service to raise her complaint. We liaised with both the resident and the landlord to ensure that the resident’s concerns were considered through the landlord’s complaint’s procedure. However, it does not appear that there was sufficient direct contact between both parties. As a result, the landlord failed to identify the key issues of the complaint or address them through its complaint’s process.
In its stage one response the landlord focused on the wrong issue and at stage two the landlord failed to identify the works that had been carried out in 2021. The landlord’s failure to understand what the complaint was about meant that it did not address the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out that “landlords should confirm their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes being sought with the resident.” Further to this the Ombudsman encourages landlords to consider the key principles of dispute resolution set out by this Service: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord failed to gain the necessary understanding of the resident’s complaint. In doing so it overlooked its responsibility for these repairs and missed an opportunity to review its handling of the issue and put things right for the resident.
It offered compensation of £150 by way of an apology within its stage two response. In the context of the landlord’s oversight, failing to identify the works that it had carried out and the failure to conclude all repairs, this amount was inappropriate in recognising the detriment caused.
Following recent contact from this Service the landlord has reviewed its complaint handling and has acknowledged its failure to properly investigate the resident’s complaint in 2022. It is now looking again at this matter and the outstanding repairs. It is appropriate that it should do so but its offer of compensation at this stage does not accurately reflect the impact on the resident.
There had been significant communications failures throughout, with the ending of all communication about the repairs, outside the complaints process, in November 2021.
Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and the circumstances of the complaint, the Ombudsman has ordered a more fitting sum of compensation, aimed at putting things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of internal repairs required because of this ingress.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There have been significant delays throughout the process for the resident, from her initial report, the inspection, engagement with NHBC and the works carried out.
The resident has been left to chase the landlord at each stage. When the repairs that were carried out failed to resolve the issue the landlord provided no advice as to next steps and stopped communicating with the resident on this issue.
In reviewing her formal complaint and contact with this Service the landlord had an opportunity to revisit the steps it had taken and to re-engage with the resident. Its failure to investigate properly and identify the works it had done meant that it missed this opportunity.
Repairs have not resolved the issue for the resident, and she continues to suffer water ingress into her property despite the works carried out in 2021. There has been no follow up by the landlord until contact from this Service in April 2023.
It is recognised that the landlord has now offered a formal apology to the resident and is taking steps to engage with her about the repairs that are still required.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident a total of £3150 compensation, comprising:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in complaint handling.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication with the resident, both in its failure to direct the resident to NHBC at an earlier stage and in its cessation of contact with the resident in November 2021.
  3. £950 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to carry out works to address the damage to internal decoration.
  4. £1000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to take reasonable action to complete works required to prevent further water ingress into the resident’s home.
  5. This order replaces the landlord’s previous offers of £150 and £1300 compensation. If these sums have already been paid to the resident, they should be deducted from the amount above.
Also, within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Ensure that a date has been agreed with the resident to undertake the inspection that the landlord advised it would arrange in its communication of April 2023, if it has not done so already.
2. Within two weeks of this inspection, provide a written action plan to the resident, including timescales, setting out the works that it will be undertaking to address the continuing issue of water ingress. This should be designed to ensure that the works are successfully completed within six months.
3. Details of the scope of repair works to put right damage to internal areas of the property (in relation to window investigation, repair, and ingress) are to be agreed with the resident and included in the written action plan. If internal repair is necessarily delayed by completion of further works to the windows, the action plan should include a timescale for completion of the internal works to put right damage.
Within six weeks of the date of this decision the landlord should:
1. Undertake a review of its latent defect process, from how it handles the initial repair report to monitoring the progress of works to remedy the issue, including engagement with NHBC. Establishing clear points of contact within its internal teams through the whole process.
2. Considering the failings in this case, undertake a review of its complaints handling and provide training for staff on how to manage, investigate and respond to complaints. The date of the training and detail of content should be provided to this Service, also within six weeks.

Recommendation

On conclusion of the works ordered under paragraph 101(c), the landlord should consider an additional offer compensation, recognising the further time taken to remedy the situation for the resident.