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

Ealing Council (202006527)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006527

Ealing Council

31 March 2021


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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak into his property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
  2. According to the landlord’s records the resident first notified it of water leaking from the roof on 5 April 2017.  Contractors attended and cleared a blockage in the roof gutter. An inspection by a surveyor was then arranged for 20 April 2017 in order to assess the damp in the resident’s property. The surveyor concluded that the wall was dry and could therefore not determine whether the mark on it was a result of the leak. The resident reported on 9 March 2018 that damp was affecting his kitchen wall. A surveyor attended and then the landlord’s contractors carried out the necessary work to the roof.
  3. On 6 March 2019 the resident reported a leak from the same area to the landlord. The landlord’s contractors then attended to carry out repair work but then requested a surveyor to attend to inspect the loose brickwork above and around the kitchen window. The surveyor attended on 20 April 2019 and requested further repair work from the contractors. However, according to the landlord, this request “was missed” by its contractors.
  4. On 20 May 2019 the resident raised a formal complaint to his landlord. He said that he had been attempting to get the leak from his kitchen roof repaired for close to three years. He said that the delay in addressing the leak had caused permanent damage to the “cosmetics” of his property and “likely structural damage to the brickwork”. He said that there were numerous outstanding repair requests.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 6 June 2019. The landlord explained what action it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of a leak since 2017. It apologised on behalf of its contractors that they had not attended following the surveyor’s request on 10 April 2019. It confirmed that the job had been raised and that once the contractors had erected the scaffolding, it could provide the resident with a start date for the repair work.
  6. It explained that the leak appeared to be intermittent and said that if the leak continued following the arranged repair work, it would need to review the case again and carry out further investigations to see if it could find a long-term solution.
  7. It concluded by advising the resident how he could escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints process. 
  8. According to the landlord’s records, the scaffolding was erected on 18 June 2019 and the repair work was then completed on 18 September 2019.
  9. On 26 November 2019 the resident escalated his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. He said that there had been no resolution to his roof leak since he first reported it in April 2017. He said that the work that the landlord had confirmed would go ahead in May 2019 was not completed until September 2019. He said that the work had not resolved the issue and that the leak had continued.
  10. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 21 January 2020. It apologised for its delay in responding. It also apologised for the length of time it had taken for the repair work to be completed. It acknowledged that the work should have been completed sooner and that there was an underlying issue that needed to be identified and resolved.
  11. It said that in response to the resident’s reports that the leak was still ongoing, it had arranged a joint inspection to be completed for 23 January 2020 from its contractor and surveyor to further assess the source of the leak. It said that once this inspection had taken place it would be in a better position to advise the resident of the next course of action. It reassured the resident that it was taking steps to resolve the issue and that it was “not always straightforward to diagnose the exact cause of a defect and identify the correct remedial action required”.
  12. It concluded by advising the resident how he could escalate his complaint to stage three of the complaints process.
  13. According to the resident, on 23 January 2020, he was advised shortly before the appointment was scheduled that the surveyor would be unable to attend. The appointment was then rearranged for 31 January 2020. The resident said that following this inspection, the surveyor had advised him that it would send contractors to inspect the roof within 14 days.
  14. On 20 February 2020 according to the landlord’s records, contractors carried out work to the blocked gutters at the front of the resident’s property as the landlord had originally believed that the water ingress was a result of defective gutters. The contractors then advised the landlord that they would have to wait until the end of March before they could inspect the resident’s property and determine whether this repair had resolved the problem.
  15. The resident raised a stage three complaint on 27 February 2020. He said that since the landlord’s stage two complaint response, no action had been taken in order to repair the leak in his kitchen. He said that as an outcome for his complaint he wanted the outstanding repair work to be completed, compensation for decorative damage, and compensation for the time he spent trying to get this matter resolved.
  16. On 18 March 2020 the resident spoke to the surveyor by telephone. The resident confirmed that the damp area in his property did not appear to be drying out.
  17. The landlord issued its stage three complaint response on 25 March 2020. It said that there had been “unacceptable shortcomings” in relation to the lack of communication between the “relevant departments” and the ownership and coordination of these repairs. It apologised for the “poor standard of service” and the frustration it had caused the resident.
  18. It said that it believed that the resident was unaware of the repair work that had been completed on 20 February 2020. It said that following the resident’s conversation with the surveyor on 18 March 2020, it would raise a job to drill into the wall and investigate how far there was dampness in the wall.
  19. It said that in light of the considerable delays in resolving the issue, it had asked its surveyor to contact with the resident every week by telephone until the issue had been resolved. It said that once issue was solved it would redecorate the affected area in his property. It also offered the resident £300 compensation to reflect any inconvenience caused by the delays he had experienced. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence, he has referenced historical leaks from 2017 and 2018 which he said were not resolved. However, no evidence has been provided for this investigation of a formal complaint being raised with the landlord until May 2019. In accordance with paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.
  2. Also, in the resident’s correspondence with this Service on 11 December 2020, he explained that the water leak in his kitchen had not been resolved following the landlord’s final complaint response. However, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we cannot investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect before we can adjudicate on it. The resident would therefore need to bring this new complaint to the landlord and if he remains dissatisfied with its final response, he could then refer the complaint to this Service for an investigation.
  3. In light of the above, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in March 2019 until its final complaint response in February 2020.

Landlord’s handling of reports of a water leak

  1. It is not disputed that the resident faced delays following his initial report of a leak on 6 March 2019, given that work did not begin until 18 June. However, in the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it acknowledged and apologised for the follow up appointment with the contractors not taking place. It its stage one and two complaint response it took steps to find a resolution to the leak (organising repair work and an inspection from a surveyor). According to the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the building in “reasonable repair and condition” and the repairs policy says the landlord is responsible for structural repairs to the property. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to investigate this issue to ascertain whether the leak was due to any fault that would fall under its remit. It also explained that it was not “always straightforward to diagnose the exact cause of a defect and identify the correct remedial action required”. The landlord’s responses were fair in the circumstances. It openly explained that despite its efforts it had been unable to discover the source of the leak but reassured the resident that it was taking action in order to resolve it. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to indicate that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports of a leak following his complaints.
  2. In its stage three complaint response, the landlord then acknowledged its “unacceptable shortcomings” in relation to the delays with its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his kitchen and offered redress in recognition of this. It apologised for its mistakes, arranged for its surveyor to have weekly contact with the resident, offered to redecorate the affected areas, and offered £300 compensation for the delays in identifying the cause of the issue as it had been investigating since March 2019.
  3. According to the lease agreement, the landlord is not liable or responsible for any damage suffered by the resident through any defect in the inside of the property. Whilst the resident is also responsible for painting and redecorating the interior of the property. Therefore, the landlord’s offer to redecorate the areas of the resident’s property that were damaged by the leak and damp was a reasonable response as it went above its obligations in order to remedy this aspect of resident’s complaint. Also, the landlord’s compensation policy recognises that an award of compensation may be an appropriate remedy when a resident “has suffered an injustice resulting from a delay by [the landlord] in taking some action”. Furthermore, according to this policy, the maximum payment it will offer a resident for their time and trouble is £250. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £300 in its stage three response was more than in line with its policy and is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in these circumstances.
  4. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its error, an apology, arranging for improved communication, offering to redecorate and a compensation payment of £300) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. The compensation offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings given that despite the delay in discovering the cause of the issue, it did take steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by advising its surveyor to keep in weekly contact with the resident in order to enhance communication and offered to make good on the damage done to his kitchen wall as a result of the leak.
  6. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in response to its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took action to investigate the cause of the leak. For example, it arranged repair work and organised an appointment with its surveyor. In its complaint responses it recognised that there had been delays on its behalf in addressing the issue and offered suitable redress in its stage three complaint response in light of its shortcomings. 

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord carries out the redecoration that it advised the resident it would do in its stage three response if this has not yet been completed.