Islington Council (202105172)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105172

Islington Council

26 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 level of compensation offered by the landlord following the resident’s reports of damp in his bathroom and ongoing leak issues.
2. The landlord’s handling of the related complaint.
3. The resident’s concerns about the level of service charges for major works and the quality of this work.
4. Issues the resident experienced with the landlord’s insurer.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Service charges for major works

Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that have been made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord in July 2021 about the service charges for major works and the quality of this work, however there is no evidence this was escalated through the landlord’s complaint procedure. As there is no evidence the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in respect of his concerns about major works, this complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Issues with the landlord’s insurer

Paragraph 34 of the Scheme sets out that a complaint must relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have adversely affected the complainant in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.
The resident raised concerns to the landlord in June 2021 about issues he had experienced with the landlord’s insurance company. The resident told the landlord he considered the insurer had a conflict of interest. The resident also complained to this Service that a claim he made to the insurance company relating to damage caused by the leaking rainwater pipe had been declined.
The Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s insurance company, or the outcome of its consideration of a claim, because the insurer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. If the resident is dissatisfied with decisions made by the insurer, he may consider raising his complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service. This investigation has considered, however, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns through its complaints procedure.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a one-bedroom third floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder.
The resident’s lease with the landlord sets out that the landlord will keep in repair the structure of the building, including:
1. Exterior walls.
2. Gutters, rainwater and soil pipes.
The lease states that the landlord is not responsible for:
1. Decoration of interior walls.
2. Heating and hot water systems that have been installed in, and serve only, an individual resident’s premises.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide (the repairs guide) sets out its response time for repairs. This says that urgent repairs, those that affect day-to-day life, will be responded to within 24 hours. It states that routine repairs will be responded to within 20 working days.
The repairs guide says that when the landlord needs to carry out work to pipes running through a leaseholder resident’s property, it will ask the resident to sign a leaseholder indemnity form. This is to set out that the landlord will make reasonable efforts not to damage decoration in the resident’s property but that this cannot be guaranteed. The responsibility for making good any damage in these circumstances is not specified in either the repairs guide or the resident’s lease.
The landlord’s complaints policy from the time relevant to this complaint set out that the landlord operated a two-stage complaint procedure.
1. Stage one and stage one review – where the complaint is reviewed and responded to by the service area. The policy states that a stage one response should be provided to the resident within 21 days of receipt of the complaint. It says the stage one review should be completed within 10 working days.
2. Chief executive stage – at this stage the matter is handled by the landlord’s corporate customer services team. It should provide a full response to the resident within 28 days of receiving the complaint.
The landlord’s updated complaints policy is available on its website. This outlines its updated complaint stages and timeframes for dealing with stage one and stage two complaints, which are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s compensation guidance from the time outlines that when a complaint has been upheld, the landlord should take action to rectify any problems that are due to mistakes or negligence. It states that compensation should reflect the injustice the resident has experienced. It provided guidelines for compensation awards. This provides a range of between £500 and £2,500 per annum for housing repair issues, depending on the severity of the issue.
Under “time and effort”, the landlord’s compensation guidance recognises that some complaints start as service requests and become complaints where the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps to address issues. It also recognises the escalation of complaints because appropriate remedies have not been offered at an earliest stage. This provides for compensation within a range of £100 and £300. The compensation guidance also sets out that an award of £25 should be considered for each month of delay beyond the “service statutory period”.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair records show the resident reported a back-surge from the drain through to his kitchen sink on 5 March 2018. Records show this was attended and resolved by the landlord the following day.
The next repair recorded for the resident’s property was on 23 December 2020. At this time the landlord raised a work order for a plumber to attend to look at a leaking waste disposal pipe. The landlord recorded this as a routine repair.
Operatives attended the resident’s property on 31 December 2020, recording that the pipe was cracked and needed to be replaced. Repair records noted the landlord requested a part needed for the repair on 22 January 2021, with it being received on 23 February 2021.There is no evidence of the landlord providing any updates to the resident about the progress of this outstanding repair between 31 December 2020 and 23 February 2021.
On 24 February 2021 the resident sent a complaint to the landlord. He said:
1. He had been waiting four months for a repair to be completed to a pipe that was leaking water.
2. He had spent 300 hours calling, texting and emailing the landlord and no-one had returned his call-back requests.
3. He found the service provided to be “disgusting” and asked for some professionalism from the landlord and that someone call him back to arrange the repair.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day and said it aimed to respond by 17 March 2021.
The landlord’s record noted its operatives attended the resident’s address on 9 March 2021 to complete repairs to the waste disposal pipe. The repair records noted:
1. The operative had cut out the cracked cast iron pipe and renewed it with a UPVC pipe.
2. The waste disposal pipe had been completely blocked, which had caused dirt to hit the walls and ceiling in the resident’s property as it was cut.
3. That the operative asked for a painter be booked to decorate the walls and ceilings and the new pipe in white.
On 10 March 2021 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. He said he was unhappy with the work completed at his property. He said:
1. The replacement pipe had been tied together with metal zip ties and did not fit in with the kitchen.
2. His kitchen, hallway and toilet had been soiled with dirty water from the waste disposal pipe, and his floor, ceiling and walls damaged.
3. He attached photos of the damage and asked that the landlord call him.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response to the resident’s complaint of 24 February 2021. In this it said it upheld the complaint and apologised for the service the resident had received. It also said:
1. There had been delays to repairs during this period due to increased work.
2. The work recommended had now been completed by the operatives.
3. It no longer installed cast iron pipes and that the work completed met the standard set by the landlord.
4. The resident, as a leaseholder, was responsible for any decorative work needed following the repair.
The landlord said it had asked a works manager to investigate the resident’s concerns that operatives had not cleaned up after completing the work. The landlord said the works manager apologised for this. It said it could not share what action had been taken against the operatives due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
Repair records show the resident reported a leak from a communal pipe into his kitchen on 14 April 2021. The landlord noted the resident said he was using a bucket to contain the leak, emptying it every 40 minutes. This was categorised by the landlord as an urgent repair. The landlord recorded its operative attended the same day. It noted there was no answer when it attempted to call the resident and knock on his door.
The following day the landlord recorded a further report from the resident of a blocked stack in his kitchen. It noted this was a routine repair and that a plumber was to attend. Repair records note the landlord’s attendance at the property on 20 April 2021. Records note that no blockages were found and that all facilities in the property were checked.
On 23 April 2021 the landlord recorded that a surveyor was to attend the property to complete a damp assessment in the bathroom. It noted that a plumber had reported there were no leaks from the property above but that the resident’s bathroom ceiling was damp.
The landlord’s repair records indicate the damp inspection was completed on 26 May 2021. The surveyor’s findings were recorded in repair records. These noted, amongst other things, that:
1. The ceiling of the bathroom, which the resident had painted in May 2021, was showing current staining and blistering and there was a high level of moisture.
2. There had been historical water penetration from the property above, but this had been checked and there were no signs of current leaks.
3. A recent repair had been completed to the waste disposal pipe in the kitchen and this work had been carried out to a “moderate standard”, and there were no current signs of back-surge.
4. There was surface condensation due to internal environmental conditions and that advice had been given to the resident to help manage this.
5. There was moss growth to brickwork at a high level.
6. The water penetration was possibly from a cracked or damaged rainwater gully pipe.
On 28 May 2021 the landlord raised a work order to carry out testing of the rainwater pipe to see if this was causing water penetration into the resident’s bathroom. It was recorded by the landlord as a routine repair.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 June 2021. He said his property was continuously flooding, and that he had complained to the landlord in March 2021 but had received no response.
On 18 June 2021 the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident’s complaint of 4 June. It said:
1. It had looked at its repair records for the property going back to October 2017 and there was no evidence to suggest the property had been continuously flooded. It noted a report of a back-surge in 2018, with the next report being the leaking pipe on 23 December 2020.
2. While it did not agree that the resident’s property had been affected by a flood, any damages he was claiming should be detailed in his insurance claim to the landlord’s insurer.
3. It noted the resident had said that damage had been caused to his property during repair work in March 2021, and that he had been told a painter would redecorate the walls and ceiling. The landlord said the operative should not have agreed to this as it did not carry out this work in leasehold properties. It said it had awarded compensation for this as a goodwill gesture.
4. The resident was still unhappy that operatives had replaced the waste disposal pipe and used zip ties.
5. It appeared the resident had not been updated as well as he should have been about resolving the water penetration. It noted the resident had raised queries about the progress of repairs and that he did not receive the promised call-backs.
The landlord also noted the resident was experiencing a new issue with dampness in his bathroom, and that a work order had been issued in respect of this. The landlord said that it did not have the specific equipment needed to complete this work. It said it expected to be able to complete the work by the end of July 2021.
The landlord apologised that the resident’s home had been affected by leaks and said it partially upheld his complaint. It offered the resident compensation of £341.64, made up of:
1. £83.33 (£41.66 x 2) for the time taken between 23 December 2020 and 9 March 2021 to resolve the kitchen leak.
2. £83.32 (£41.66 x 2) for the time between 26 May 2021 and 30 July 2021, which was when it expected to resolve the bathroom leak.
3. £50 for the misinformation that it would arrange to paint the resident’s walls and ceilings following the repair in March 2021.
4. £25 for the lack of updates about the repairs.
5. £100 for the distress, time and effort in making the complaint.
The resident responded to the landlord on 2 July 2021 expressing his dissatisfaction with the compensation offered. He said he had experienced 10 to 12 water leaks over the last 12 years, which he believed were as a result of maintenance negligence by the landlord. He said that he wanted compensation to be increased to reflect the inconvenience and stress he had suffered and the damage to his property.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 7 July 2021. He said he was at his “wits end” dealing with constant flooding in the property. He said:
1. He believed the property to be in a bad state of repair and work completed on it to be substandard.
2. He wanted to meet the repairs and major works team about this.
3. Dealing with the landlord over the last 20 years had caused him anxiety, stress, frustration and mental illness.
The landlord’s repair records note an operative attended the property on 9 July 2021 to carry out work to test the rainwater pipe. The operative noted that they had found water had been leaking down the wall at the property and that asphalt on the landing above the resident’s property needed to be inspected. The repair records do not detail what work was completed to test the rainwater pipe at this time.
On 15 July 2021 the landlord raised a work order for a roofer to inspect asphalt above the resident’s property and carry out a water test of the outlet.
Also on 15 July 2021, the landlord issued a stage one review to the resident. It said:
1. Its responsive repair service dealt with matters as they arose and that there was nothing to suggest that the resident had reported leaks that had remained unresolved since 2009.
2. The compensation offered was in line with its policy. It would review the compensation once the repairs to resolve bathroom dampness were complete. It said no further compensation was due in respect of the resident’s assertion that leaks had been ongoing since 2009.
3. The resident should contact the major works team about the condition of the estate and his concern about the works completed.
4. It noted that the resident had referred to problems he had with making a claim to the landlord’s buildings insurer. The landlord directed him to make a complaint directly to the insurer. It also directed him to an individual who worked for the landlord who could help with queries about insurance matters.
On 26 July 2021 the resident told the landlord he wished to escalate his complaint. The landlord responded the following day. It said it would investigate the complaint at the chief executive stage but, due to the number of requests, it could not yet begin this investigation.
The resident made contact with this Service on 25 August 2021. He said he had heard nothing further from the landlord and felt the landlord was aware it had completed substandard work and was “running scared”.
The resident again made contact with this Service on 5 October 2021 reporting that he had received no update from the landlord since 27 July 2021. This Service contacted the landlord to request an update but received no response.
Repair records note that on 15 October 2021 the landlord completed work at the property to replace a section of the rainwater pipe.
Repair records note that on 27 October 2021 a roofer completed a further inspection of the property, noting:
1. There was no crack in the walkway above.
2. The asphalt around the downpipe had already been done.
3. There may be a crack in the outlet or swan-neck, and they were to inspect.
4. The outlet outside the resident’s property was clear.
5. The leak was coming through the brickwork from the resident’s kitchen, and that this may be coming from the resident’s boiler.
This Service made further contact with the landlord on 1 December 2021. In response the following day, the landlord stated it did not expect to start the investigation until February 2022 due to the high volume of cases. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with an update at this time.
After further contact from the resident about the lack of response from the landlord, this Service again contacted the landlord on 12 January 2022. In response, on 13 January 2022, the landlord said again that it would begin its investigation of the matter in February 2022. It said it would address the delay in its response and would make an appropriate award of compensation in respect of this. After this Service requested it did so, the landlord also wrote to the resident on the 13 January 2021, providing him with the same update and apologising for the delay.
On 18 March 2022, having been informed by the resident that he was still awaiting a response, this Service again made contact with the landlord. At this time this Service determined that there had been a complaint handling failure by the landlord because of its failure to provide complaint response in a reasonable timescale. This Service said that the landlord must ensure that a complaint response be provided to the resident by 25 March 2022.
The landlord issued a chief executive stage response to the resident on 23 March 2022. In this it acknowledged and apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint at chief executive stage. In respect of the dampness in the bathroom, it said:
1. Following a damp inspection, a surveyor had identified an area of dampness in the bathroom. The surveyor had identified an issue with the rainwater pipe and had issued a work order.
2. An operative had attended on 9 July 2021 and had suggested an inspection of the asphalt above the resident’s property.
3. A work order was issued for the water test of the outlet, for an appointment on 26 July 2021, which was recorded as no access.
4. An operative had attended on 29 September 2021 and had reported that there were no cracks in walkway above, the asphalt had already been done, but that there may be a crack in the outlet or swan’s neck.
5. A contractor completed work on 21 October 2021 to renew a section of the rainwater pipe at the property.
6. An operative had attended on 27 October 2021 and had found the outlet outside the resident’s property was clear and that the leak was coming from inside the resident’s kitchen, possibly from the boiler.
7. As a leaseholder, the resident was responsible for any boiler repairs in his property.
The landlord noted the resident disagreed with its conclusion that there was an internal issue with the boiler. It noted that the resident had said a large crack in the wall was causing water penetration and dampness in his bathroom. The landlord said its surveyor had not noted any wall cracks.
The landlord acknowledged that repairs to resolve dampness in the resident’s bathroom had taken longer than anticipated. It said it had identified and resolved the fault with the rainwater pipe through a process of elimination. It noted it had previously anticipated this work would be completed by the end of July 2021. As the work was not completed until October 2021 it said it had awarded further redress to reflect this. It offered compensation to the resident, rounded up to £500, made up of:
1. £341.64 offered previously.
2. £83.32 (£41.66 x 2) for the further delay in August and September in completing the repair affecting the resident’s bathroom.
3. £75 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
In correspondence with this Service the resident said he was unhappy with the £500 compensation offered by the landlord. He said he was seeking a further £2,000 because of how the issues with damp had affected his health. He said that he suffered from depression and the issues he had experienced with the landlord had not helped this.
The resident told this Service that the operatives had not protected surfaces when completing the repairs to the waste disposal pipe. He said that, following the damage caused during this repair, he had submitted a claim through the landlord’s building insurance. He said the insurer had paid out for the cost of regrouting tiles, but it had refused to pay for the cost of repainting walls and the ceiling. The resident said he carried out the work to repaint these himself. He said he had also made a claim to the insurer to box in the waste disposal pipe, which he considered unsightly because of the metal zip ties. He said that this claim was refused. The resident also said the insurance company had refused his claim in relation to damage caused by the leaking rainwater pipe. He said that the landlord had assisted him in this claim by providing evidence to the insurance company.
The resident told this Service that the repairs to the rainwater pipe resolved the issues with damp in his bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told this Service that he is seeking compensation from the landlord for leaks he experienced at the property over a 12-year period. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within six months of the matters arising. There is no evidence that a complaint was escalated through the landlord’s complaints procedure prior to the complaint which was raised in February 2021. Records indicate that a leak was reported in December 2018, and was attended and resolved the following day. The next recorded report of a leak occurred more than two and half years later, in December 2020.
This investigation has therefore considered the landlord’s handling of leaks between December 2020 and March 2022, when the resident received a final response from the landlord to his complaint. This is on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the evidence from repair records. Any reference to reports relating to earlier than December 2020 are for context only.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following the resident’s report of damp in his bathroom and ongoing leak issues

The waste disposal pipe repair

The resident reported a leak from his kitchen waste disposal pipe on 23 December 2020. The landlord’s initial attendance on 31 December 2021 was in line with the timescales for routine repairs. However, due to the availability of parts, the repair could not be completed at this time.
Delays due to the availability of parts can be unavoidable. However, there is no indication the landlord provided any update, or timescales for the repair, to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided updates to the resident about the timescale for the repair to be completed.
The resident might reasonably still have expected this repair to be completed within the landlord published timeframe of 20 working days. Had he been made aware that the landlord was awaiting a part it might have helped him understand why the repair was delayed. It is evident from the resident’s complaint of 24 February 2021 that he was left frustrated and upset by the perceived lack of action and update from the landlord about this. That the landlord did not update the resident was a failing in its handling of the matter.
In responding, on 16 March 2021, to the resident’s complaint about this repair the landlord upheld the complaint. However, it did not address or acknowledge its failure to keep the resident updated about the repair, or the impact upon the resident of this. This was despite the resident clearly expressing in his complaint his annoyance about lack of progress of the repair, and the landlord’s failure to keep him updated or return his calls about this. Although belated, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to explain in its complaint response of 16 March 2021 that the repair had been delayed by availability of a part that was needed. Instead, the landlord simply said repairs during this period had been delayed due to increased work.
It was not until the complaint response of 18 June 2021 that the landlord acknowledged is failure to keep the resident updated about the repair, and to provide promised call-backs. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation at this time. It is not clear how the landlord arrived at this compensation amount. However, given its failure to keep the resident updated and return his calls about the outstanding repair over a period of several weeks, this amount does not fully recognise the impact upon the resident. With reference to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman has ordered a further compensation payment aimed at putting things right.
The landlord awarded the resident £83.33 (£41.66 x 2) for the delay between 23 December 2020 and 9 March 2021 in resolving the leak from the waste disposal pipe. Although the landlord did not explain how it had arrived at this payment level, it appears the basis for this award was the compensation guidance for awards in respect of housing repair issues. This provides a range of between £500 and £2,500 per annum depending upon the severity of this issue.
As this repair was outstanding for eight weeks beyond the landlord’s timescales for completing repairs of this time, the period over which it has paid compensation was appropriate.
There is no doubt that the landlord’s delay in completing repairs to the resident’s leaking waste disposal pipe caused him distress and inconvenience. This is apparent from his complaint of 24 February 2021. He has told this Service that the leak from the waste disposal pipe caused dampness in a cupboard and floor below. In considering all the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, this Service considers the level of compensation offered by the landlord for delayed repair was appropriate. This Service has recognised the impact upon the resident of the landlord’s failure to update him about the progress of the repair in a separate order for compensation.
The resident raised concerns about the work on the waste disposal pipe, and the mess left behind, soon after it was completed on 9 March 2021. The landlord’s response of 16 March 2021 did not adequately address these concerns. While apologising for operatives not clearing up after the repair, the landlord placed full responsibility upon the resident to complete decorative work to rectify the damage to his walls and ceiling.
The landlord’s repairs policy refers to a leaseholder indemnity form, to be used in circumstances where it completes work in a leasehold property. There is no evidence one was completed in this instance. Neither the repairs policy nor the resident’s lease specifies who would be responsible for making good damage in such circumstances. Under the resident’s lease, responsibility for decorating internal walls falls to the resident. But in this case it is clear the attending operatives told the resident the landlord would decorate to remedy the damage, and the landlord did not dispute that damage was caused by its operatives.
The damage described by the resident appears to be as a result of the landlord’s operatives’ failure to protect surfaces during, and clear up after, the work. In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection to understand the extent of the damage. The landlord might then have directed the resident to submit a claim to its liability insurance, or have taken action to clear up the mess left by its operatives. It was not reasonable, in these circumstances, for the landlord to take the position that it was the resident’s responsibility to rectify the issue.
The landlord later offered compensation of £50 to the resident for the misinformation that it would arrange to paint the walls and ceilings. This sum does not recognise the expense, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the damage and mess left by the landlord’s operatives. While the resident has said he claimed under his buildings’ insurance for the cost of regrouting tiles, he said his claim for the cost of repainting was refused and he carried out this work himself. It is clear the resident was inconvenienced by this. The Ombudsman has ordered an additional sum of compensation to appropriately recognise the expense, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings.
Throughout his complaint the resident raised concerns about the quality of the work completed to the waste disposal pipe, specifically the use of metal zip ties. The landlord failed to adequately address these concerns. The landlord’s response that the work met the standards it set did not address the concern raised about the use of metal zip ties. The landlord continued to fail to address this point in later responses despite noting, on 18 June 2021, that the resident remained unhappy about this. The Ombudsman has made an order aimed at addressing the resident’s concerns about the use of zip ties during the repair, and recognising the impact of the landlord’s failure to do this sooner.

Other reports of leaks

The resident reports of further leaks in his kitchen on 14 and 15 April 2021 were appropriately attended by the landlord within timescales set out in its repairs policy. As such, there were no failings in the landlord’s response to these reports.

The dampness in the bathroom

Although not specifically recorded in the landlord’s repair records, it appears the raising of a damp assessment on 23 April 2021 followed on from a plumber’s attendance at the property on 20 April 2021. Having found the resident’s bathroom ceiling to be damp, the landlord took the appropriate step of arranging a damp assessment. The surveyor’s assessment on 26 May 2021 found the issue may be a cracked or damaged rainwater pipe, and a work order was raised on 28 May 2021. Work to complete this repair was again delayed by the availability of specific equipment. However, the landlord appropriately explained this to the resident in its response of 18 June 2021, and provided a likely timescale for this repair in July 2021. This was proactive management of the delay in resolving the repair by the landlord, and will have helped to manage the resident’s expectations about when the repair would be completed.
This Service has seen evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord. The repair records provided are inconsistent with details set out in the chief executive stage response of 23 March 2022. The repair records do not record the appointment of 26 July 2021. Nor do records detail the attendance on 29 September 2021. Instead, the findings on this date have been recorded under the attendance on 27 October 2021. Repair records are also inconsistent with the chief executive’s stage response about when in October 2021 work was completed to renew a section of the rainwater pipe.
It is possible the landlord obtained additional information about inspections and work to the resident’s property from internal emails or other sources of information. However, the landlord’s failure to incorporate important detail into repair records has resulted in the timeline of the repairs during this time becoming unclear. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations, and in the management and monitoring of outstanding repairs. A recommendation has therefore been made aimed at ensuring the landlord addresses the failings in record keeping identified during this investigation. While these failings have been identified, this Service has also found that they caused little or no detriment to the resident.
While records around the precise timing of repairs are unclear, by 27 October 2021 the landlord had inspected the asphalt above and completed repairs to the rainwater pipe. Records also show the landlord’s plumber had identified a possible leak to be coming from the resident’s boiler. In line with the lease, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident was responsible for any repairs needed to his boiler.
The landlord awarded compensation of £166.64 to the resident for the four-month delay in completing work needed to resolve the dampness in the resident’s bathroom. As this repair was completed four months outside the landlord’s published timescales for routine repairs, the period over which the landlord compensated the resident was appropriate.
The level of the landlord’s offer was consistent with the range set out in the landlord’s guidance for compensation in respect of housing repair issues, which is dependent upon the severity of the issue. While the damp inspection of 26 May 2021 identified a possible issue with the rainwater pipe, it is clear the landlord completed other work to explore the cause of the dampness. It is apparent, therefore, that the landlord was taking some steps during this time to identify and resolve the damp issues the resident was experiencing.
There is no doubt that the resident would have experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the ongoing issues with damp in his bathroom. Taking into account all of the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, this Service considers the landlord has made an appropriate award to the resident for the delays in completing work to the rainwater pipe.
It is noted that the resident said he made a claim to his building insurer for the damage to the bathroom from this issue, and that he said the landlord had assisted with this. While the resident said this claim had been refused by the insurance company, any concerns the resident has about this would need to be raised through the insurance company’s complaints process and with the Financial Ombudsman Service. This Service cannot assess the insurance company’s handling of this matter, but it is appropriate to consider what action the landlord took to assist the resident in making his claim to the insurance company. It is evident that the landlord provided the resident with contact details for a member of its staff who could assist him with queries about insurance matters. It also provided assistance in the claim he made relating to damage caused by the leaking rainwater pipe. These were reasonable actions by the landlord.
The landlord said in its stage two response that the resident had disagreed with the conclusions of its operative about the cause of the damp. It said he had raised a concern that a crack in the wall was causing water penetration. The landlord had taken appropriate steps in May 2021 by carrying out a damp inspection to investigate the cause of dampness in the bathroom. Records indicate the surveyor inspected brickwork at that time, and had identified the rainwater pipe as the possible cause of the damp. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the opinion of its suitably qualified member of staff about the source of the damp.
This Service notes that the landlord’s records do not confirm when and to whom the resident raised concerns about a crack in the wall being a cause of dampness in his bathroom. This is further evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord. However, the resident has told this Service that the work to the repair the rainwater pipe resolved the damp issues he had been experiencing.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its consideration of the level of compensation following the resident’s reports of leaks at his property. The landlord made appropriate awards of compensation in respect of its delays in completing repairs to the waste disposal pipe and the rainwater pipe. However, the landlord failed to appropriately compensate the resident for the:
1. Lack of updates about the repairs to the waste disposal pipe.
2. Damage and mess left after this repair.

The landlord’s handling of the related complaint

The landlord’s response to the resident on 16 March 2021 was within its published timescales. This provided a response to the resident’s complaints of 24 February and 10 March 2021. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in completing repairs to the waste disposal pipe, it did not address the failure to update the resident about this. Nor did it offer to compensate the resident for this delay. Additionally, this response failed to appropriately and fully address the resident’s concerns about the work that had been completed to the waste disposal pipe. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident and, overall, was an inadequate response to the concerns he had raised in his complaints of 24 February and 10 March 2021.
The resident complained on 4 June 2021 that his property was continuously flooding. The landlord’s response to this, on 18 June 2021, was within its published timescales. However, it is noted that at this time it provided a further stage one response. This response reconsidered issues around the repair of the waste disposal pipe already addressed on 16 March 2021. In line with the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), a complaint should be escalated through the complaint stages in circumstances when a resident remains unhappy with the complaint response. However, in this case, the resident had also raised new concerns about repeat flooding issues. The landlord responded to this along with addressing the newly discovered issue of dampness in the bathroom. In these particular circumstances, it does not appear unreasonable for the landlord to have provided a further stage one response in order to address all the resident’s concerns at this time.
This response appropriately awarded the resident compensation for the delay in completing the repairs to the waste disposal and rainwater pipe. It also acknowledged the failure to provide the resident with updates about the repairs to his waste disposal pipe. However, as outlined earlier in this report, the £25 compensation it offered for this was insufficient to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this failing. In addition, the landlord continued to fail to provide a full and appropriate response to the concerns the resident had raised about the work completed to the waste disposal pipe and the damage/mess left at his property. This was a further missed opportunity to put things right.
As an obligation of the landlord’s membership of the Ombudsman’s scheme the landlord must manage complaints from residents in accordance with its published procedure or, where this is not possible, within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s complaints procedure must be compliant with the Code.
In this case, the resident waited almost eight months for a stage two response to his complaint. That was far outside timescales set out in landlord’s own policy from the time, or the Code.
When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for the matter to be escalated on 27 July 2021, it explained it could not yet begin the investigation because of the number of other requests. However, it provided the resident with no indication of how long he might have to wait for a response and made no offer to keep him updated about progress. This was poor. The landlord provided no update to the resident about this until 13 January 2022, and only after prompting by this Service.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree to update the resident at regular intervals about the progress of the matter. Instead, the resident was left to repeatedly contact this Service to chase a response. It is clear the resident was left with the impression the landlord was trying to avoid having respond to the issues he had raised. There is no doubt the resident would have experienced frustration at the lack of update from the landlord, and that he needed to spend time and effort chasing the landlord’s delayed response.
The landlord’s eventual response of 23 March 2022 acknowledged the delay in its investigation and offered the resident £75. The landlord did not explain how it had arrived at a compensation figure of £75 for what amounted to delay of nearly seven months beyond timescales set out in its own complaints policy. The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out a payment of £25 per month of delay. In light of this, the offer of £75 does not appear to have been made on a reasonable basis.
It has been noted that the landlord also offered £75 compensation in other complaints around this time, where it was delayed in providing a stage two response. In these cases, there were differing periods of delay. This indicates the landlord may have been offering a predetermined amount of compensation to such cases without giving consideration to the individual circumstances.
Under the “time and effort” section of the compensation guidance the landlord recognises the escalation of some complaints because appropriate remedies have not been offered at the earliest stage. The landlord provides a range for this of £100 and £300. It is clear in this case that the landlord failed to provide an appropriate remedy to the resident for some aspects of his complaint, such as the lack of updates and the damage left at his property after the repair. In addition, the landlord failed to fully respond to concerns the resident had about the repair of his waste disposal pipe.
The failure of the landlord to address and respond to these issues properly meant the resident had to spend more time and effort on the complaint than he should have needed to. While the landlord made an award of £100, this amount insufficiently compensates the resident for the impact of the landlord’s failure in this regard. Nor does it recognise the frustration experienced, and the time and effort expended as a result the landlord’s lack of updates about the delayed stage two response. With this in mind, an order has been made of an increased sum of compensation to appropriately recognise the time and effort expended by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings.
An order has recently been made to the landlord about its approach on cases delayed in the complaints process. That order set out that the landlord should review its approach to:
1. Keeping residents updated where there are delays in the complaints process.
2. The time taken to respond to complaints at stage two.
3. The compensation offered for delays and time and effort.
In light of the complaint handling failings identified in this case, a further order has been made that the landlord:
1. Review the complaint handling failings which have been identified in this case, and confirm to this Service whether action has already been taken to ensure that these failings are not repeated and;
2. If not, confirm to this Service what action will be taken to reduce the risk of these failures happening again. This should include training on the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
There was a significant delay in the handling of this complaint. There was inconvenience, time and effort to the resident and a failure by the landlord to provide an adequate response to all of his concerns. There was maladministration by the landlord in the handling of this complaint.
While it recognised some of its failings, the level of compensation offered by the landlord was insufficient to remedy the impact of its failings. With consideration to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, the landlord’s compensation guidance and the particular circumstances of this case, an order has been made for the landlord to pay additional compensation to remedy these failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its consideration of the level of compensation offered following the resident’s reports of damp in his bathroom and ongoing leak issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the level of service charges for major works and the quality of this work has not been considered during this investigation as there is no evidence he exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in respect of these concerns.
In accordance with paragraph41(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s insurance company, or the outcome of its consideration of a claim, because the insurer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide adequate compensation to the resident to fully address the trouble, distress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of its failings. The compensation offered by the landlord for the delay in completing repairs to the waste disposal and rainwater pipe was appropriate. However, it failed to fully recognise and compensate the resident for the impact of its failure to update him about the repair to the waste pipe. Nor did it appropriately compensate the resident for the trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of the mess left by its operatives after this repair.
The landlord’s stage two response to the resident’s complaint was significantly delayed. It also failed to provide the resident with adequate communication about the progress of the investigation and when he might expect to receive a response. In addition, the landlord did not follow its own guidance when deciding upon the amount of compensation to award for this delay.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1024.96 compensation, made up of:
  1. £83.32 already offered for the delay in completing the repair to the waste disposal pipe.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to provide adequate updates to the resident about the repair to his waste disposal pipe. This includes the £25 already offered.
  3. £250 for the trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to take appropriate steps after damage/mess at the resident’s property during the repairs of the waste disposal pipe. This includes the £50 already offered.
  4. £166.64 already offered for the delay in completing repairs to the rainwater pipe.
  5. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delay in providing him with a stage two response to his complaint. This includes the £75 already offered by the landlord.
  6. £250 for the resident’s time and effort in making his complaints and in chasing updates on his escalated complaint. This includes the £100 already offered by the landlord.
  7. The sums previously offered by the landlord should be deducted from the total if they have already been paid to the resident.
2. Within four weeks of the date of this report contact the resident to arrange an inspection of his waste disposal pipe to ensure that work has been completed in line with the landlord’s standard. At this time the landlord should also address the resident’s concerns about the use of metal zip ties.
3. In light of the complaint handling failings identified in this case, the landlord should within six weeks of the date of this report:
  1. Review the complaint handling failings which have been identified in this case, and confirm to this Service whether action has already been taken to ensure that these failings are not repeated and;
  2. If not, confirm to this Service what action will be taken to reduce the risk of these failures happening again. This should include training on the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Recommendations

An order has recently been made to the landlord on another case that it conduct a review into its repairs and complaints record keeping. In light of this recent order, it is recommended that, within the same review, the landlord ensures the failings in record keeping identified in this case are also addressed.