Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Ealing (202117829)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117829

London Borough of Ealing

27 October 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 handling of:
    1. A roof leak and the associated repair works.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is a freeholder.
  2. On 25 October 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated in late August/early September 2021 she notified the landlord about a leak from the roof which damaged her bathroom ceiling. She said the ceiling contained asbestos. The resident stated that she had been chasing the landlord’s repairs teams and surveyor regularly to carry out the necessary repairs to the roof.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 9 November 2021. It explained that there was a delay with its surveyor authorising the survey report which resulted in delays to repair the roof leak. The landlord also recommended for the resident to contact her leasehold insurer to resolve the issues with the asbestos in the ceiling. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the delays.
  4. On 12 November 2021, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained that she had not seen any scaffold erected at the property to repair the roof and the roof repair was still outstanding.
  5. The Ombudsman chased the landlord on multiple occasions between January 2022 and May 2022 for it to issue the resident with a stage 2 complaint response.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 30 May 2022. It explained that scaffolding was erected at the property on 24 November 2021, and it recommended several works to repair the roof including the removal and refix of roof tiles, replacing the felt and installing 4 new vent tiles. However, the landlord explained that it had decided to replace the roof instead of repair it. It stated that the life cycle of the roof had expired, and it would be expensive to continue to erect scaffolding in the future to carry out patch repairs to the roof. The landlord stated that replacing the roof offered the best value for money. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation to recognise the unreasonable delays in repairing the roof.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was for the landlord to rectify the leak and carry out decorative works to the damaged areas affected by the leak. She also stated that she would like the landlord to communicate with her effectively and respond to her complaint in line with its complaints procedure.
  8. The resident informed the Ombudsman in October 2023 that the roof has been replaced in July 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a roof leak and the associated works.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the estimated cost of the roof replacement which she will be required to pay through her service charges. This report will consider the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and associated works and whether it provided a reasonable response to the resident about its decision to replace the roof instead of repair it. This report will not consider the cost of the roof replacement. This is because paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), explains that this service cannot investigate complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of rent or service charge increase. Disputes about the level of rent or service charge or level of increase are outside the remit of the Ombudsman and are better suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to contact the First Tier Tribunal if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.
  2. The resident’s lease agreement state that the landlord is responsible for repairing the roof including the repair or replacement of defective and broken tiles and lead slates.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy, which is applicable to leaseholders, explains that it will respond to emergency repairs within the same working day, urgent and routine repairs within 15 working days and planned repairs within 60 working days.
  4. The resident initially submitted a complaint to the landlord about a leak from the roof entering her property in August 2021. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on 24 September 2021 to inspect the roof. However, it was identified that scaffolding was required at the front of the property to assess where the leak was coming from. Following this there was a delay by the landlord in arranging for the scaffolding to be erected. The scaffolding was not erected until 24 November 2021 and shortly after the landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection of the roof. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord had to arrange for scaffolding to be erected. However, the length of time it took the landlord to inspect the roof leak was unreasonable and not in line with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s repairs policy. This would have caused inconvenience and worry to the resident as she was waiting longer than necessary for the repair to be completed.
  5. The landlord’s contractor identified from the inspection that several repair works were required to fix the roof leak. The repair work included the removal and refix of roof tiles, replacing the felt and installing 4 new vent tiles. However, due to the age of the roof, the landlord made the decision to replace the roof instead of repair it. It explained in its stage 2 complaint response that continuing to patch repair the roof over the coming years would result in expensive scaffolding costs. Therefore, it stated that replacing the roof was best value for money.
  6. The resident raised as part of her complaint that she was unhappy that the landlord had decided to replace the roof instead of repair it. She explained that her property had been approved as part of a regeneration programme and was going to be knocked down and rebuilt. Therefore, the resident believed it was inappropriate for the landlord to replace the roof. It is understandable that the resident felt unhappy about the landlord’s decision to replace the roof. However, the landlord did provide the resident with a reasonable explanation of why it has decided to replace the roof. It also carried out a consultation with all affected residents regarding the roof replacement in line with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Therefore, the Ombudsman believes the landlord acted appropriately and fairly in its decision to replace the roof. Ultimately, the landlord is entitled to decide the methods it uses to complete repairs as it sees fit, provided it enacts a lasting repair. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to opt to replace the roof rather than repairing it and the Ombudsman would not interfere with this decision. As explained above if the resident is concerned about the cost of this work as part of her service charge, she can bring her concerns to the First Tier Tribunal as the Ombudsman cannot consider this in our investigation.
  7. Although, the landlord acted reasonably in its decision to replace the roof, it failed to carry out temporary repairs to fix the roof leak whilst it was arranging for the roof to be replaced. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the roof was replaced around July 2022. Therefore, due to this the resident was left with a leak entering her property for nearly a year. The leak damaged the resident’s bathroom ceiling which contained asbestos, and the resident has stated that the buildings insurer would not repair the ceiling and remove the asbestos until the roof was repaired by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs to the roof resulted in the resident and her children having to use a bathroom containing asbestos for nearly a year.
  8. There has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and associated works. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £400 to recognise the considerable distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to the landlord’s failure to carry out temporary repairs to resolve the roof leak. The compensation is in addition to the £200 compensation that the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact. In this case, although the landlord failed to carry out temporary repairs to the roof, there may be no permanent impact to the resident from this, as the roof was eventually replaced in July 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales which are referenced in the code.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 25 October 2021 about a leak from the roof which damaged her bathroom ceiling which contained asbestos. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 November 2021. The response time by the landlord was reasonable in this instance, in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the code.
  3. However, it took around six months for the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response. On 12 November, the resident contacted the landlord and requested for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 30 May 2022. The response was significantly late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy or the code. The landlord did apologise for the delayed response; however, it did not provide any reason for the delay. The Ombudsman had to chase the landlord on multiple occasions between January 2022 and May 2022 for it to provide a response to the resident. The delay would have caused inconvenience and the resident was delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service. She also needed to contact the Ombudsman to ask us to chase the landlord which would have added to her inconvenience.
  4. Given the significant delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation is appropriate to recognise the significant delay the resident experienced. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above. In this case, although the delay would have been inconvenient, there may be no permanent impact to the resident, as she eventually received a final response letter from the landlord and was able to submit her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and associated works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £400 for its handling of the roof leak and associated repair works.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for errors in its complaint handling.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer made in its stage 2 response of £200 in compensation if it has not already done so.