Islington Council (202216141)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216141

Islington Council

19 July 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.

Complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks from the roof.
2. Reports that the communal cleaning service was not being provided.
3. Reports that the communal TV aerial was not working, and her request for the service charge to be removed.
4. Request for charges for storage sheds to be removed.
5. Complaint.

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.
After carefully considering the evidence, the resident’s complaint about the charges for the storage sheds falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
After completing the landlord’s complaints process, the resident notified the landlord that she was unhappy with the introduction of charges for renting storage sheds. She stated she had previously been able to use them for free and was not in a position financially, to afford the additional expense. She requested that the landlord removed the charge.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that a weekly rental charge was introduced in 2018, which was agreed under the “letting of storage sheds – charging policy”. It delayed implementing the policy, because of Covid-19. It confirmed that as there were no storage sheds located within the resident’s block, she would be charged to rent one, in line with its policy.
While the resident’s concerns about this matter are acknowledged, her complaint has not been considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Paragraph 42(a) of the scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
It is noted that the landlord has provided an explanation about the charge; however, the resident’s concerns have not been raised as a complaint. It follows that the landlord has not provided a response through its complaint’s procedure. If the resident remains unhappy about the situation and the landlord’s explanation regarding the charge, she should raise a complaint. If the resident remains unhappy with the response she receives, she may refer the matter to this Service as a new complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in a one-bedroom, second floor flat within a block, and has done since 2014.

Policies, procedures, and legislation

The landlord’s repairs policy states:

i. It will complete emergency repairs within two hours, urgent repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days.

ii. If the same maintenance problem reoccurs within 12 months of the landlord conducting a repair which was to fix the problem, the landlord will treat this as a “recall” to the original repair job. It will aim to revisit and refix the problem within five working days.

iii. The policy states that if a repair is not conducted within set time limits, the resident has the right to a compensation payment if work is not completed within the timescale given (e.g., 7 days for a leaking roof to be fixed). This is under the Right to Repair. The compensation is fixed at £10, plus £2 for every day that the repair is not finished, up to a limit of £50.

The landlord’s repairs guide states:

i. The landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in repair including gutters and roof.

ii. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order communal television systems serving the building.

iii. The landlord confirms it will “make good” after completing a repair. This means it will prepare the surfaces in the area around the repair so that they are ready to be redecorated. Usually this is done after a leak.

The landlord’s caretaking manual confirms that:

i. To ensure that [the landlord’s] properties and estates are kept clean and in good condition inspections are conducted once a month to assess caretaking standards from grade A – D. (A being 100% satisfactory and D being a service failure). The monthly inspections are conducted by Quality Assurance Officers (QAOs).

ii. Examples given for daily tasks are emptying the bins. Weekly tasks include stairs being washed and swept and cleared of hazards.

The landlord’s complaints policy, in place at the time of the complaint, states that it will respond to:

i. Stage one complaints – within 21 calendar days

ii. Stage one review complaints – within 10 calendar days

iii. Chief Executive stage complaints – within 28 calendar days

The landlord’s refunds, compensation, and remedies policy states:
1. A refund is money that the landlord will pay to residents for services that are included in their weekly, or monthly, service charges and that have already been paid, for example, heating charges. Refunds are normally paid where there has been a loss of amenities for 2 consecutive days or more. The refund amount will be linked to the actual service charge billed at the time when the failure of service occurred.
2. Compensation payments are awarded in recognition of the inconvenience caused to residents, because of a service failure. These are broken into three categories:

i. Slight inconvenience: £500 – £1000 per annum

ii. Moderate inconvenience: £1000 – £1500 per annum

iii. Severe inconvenience: £1500 – £2500 per annum

Caretaking – [the landlord] will pay a refund in cases where there has been a total loss of a caretaking service for 5 consecutive service days or more. For example, where the service is provided one day per week, a refund will be paid when there has been a failure for five weeks. The refund will be the equivalent of the weekly charge that is specified in the rent breakdown. No compensation is payable for loss of caretaking services.

Summary of events

On 28 September 2017, the resident reported an “ongoing issue” with a leak from the roof, which had damaged her bathroom. The landlord attended on 3 October 2017, and resolved the issue.
In November 2018, two further roof leaks were reported by other residents in the block. The landlord’s records confirm that the roof was affecting the communal areas as well as “multiple properties.” The job was attended on 4 December 2018, but “no visible leak (was) recorded”.
In March 2019, a further leak was reported by another resident in the block. The landlord’s records confirmed that the leak was reportedly coming from the roof, affecting the bathroom, was “running down the sides of the walls, into neighbouring properties” and it “usually occurred when it rained.” The landlord’s record confirmed “15m of fixer work” was completed on 9 May 2019.
On 10 April 2019, the resident reported a leak, which was affecting the communal areas. The landlord raised a job for “follow on required to gain access and check for any blockages, as possible water laying on the roof causing leaks.” A roofer attended on 16 April 2019, and “cleared two outlets”.
In June 2019, a further leak was reported by another resident within the block. The job was attended on 4 July 2019, where an operative “sealed the centre valley on the flat roof”.
On 23 October 2019, the resident reported a leak from the roof, stating that it was affecting rooms within her flat. The gutters were cleared on 29 October 2019.
On 13 November 2019, another resident within the block reported a leak which was “affecting the communal landing and water was coming down through the light”. The job was attended the same day and the leak traced from the communal tank on the roof. The following day, the landlord unblocked four gullies.
On 12 December 2019, a crack on the roof of the building was sealed.
On 28 July 2020, another resident in the block reported that water was coming through a light on the top floor communal area, and it was an “ongoing issue”. The records note that the “leak was from roof, and only leaks when it rains, apparently it floods the whole top landing and goes down the stairs…pass to roofers asap.” The job was attended on 30 July 2020, and five outlets on the roof were cleared of blockages.

On 6 January 2021, the resident reported a leak which affected her bathroom ceiling and had caused the communal stairwell to become slippery. She stated it was an ongoing issue and the roof needed to be cleared of leaves and debris. The landlord raised a works order to inspect and rectify. An operative attended on 12 January 2021. The roof was swept, and three blocked outlets were cleared. The operative noted that the “wall needed felting as [water was] running off under overhang [and] leaking into upstands.”

On 2 September 2021, the landlord raised a works order to inspect the resident’s ceiling and the walls in the bathroom and bedroom, following the leak.

On 14 September 2021, the resident reported an “ongoing” leak affecting her kitchen and bathroom, communal stairwell and lighting, and which occurred usually during heavy rain. An operative attended on 27 September 2021. Three outlets were unblocked, but no other defects were found. The landlord confirmed that if the roof leaked again, a “Fix-R” should be used on a dry day, to seal the roof.

A block stain was completed on the resident’s kitchen and lounge ceiling following the leak on 27 September 2021. The operative advised that follow on work was required to “caulk, fill and paint” the crack on the living room and bathroom ceiling.
On 27 September 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to her landlord which stated:
1. The roof above her property, and to the communal area (stairwell) had issues with leaks. She stated this had been ongoing, prior to her moving in seven years ago.
2. “Consistent” leaks through her bathroom and kitchen ceilings had caused damage to the interior of the property.
3. The stairwell was “dangerously slippery” and caused lighting outages.
4. The roof should be cleaned, and debris removed from the roof and gutter.
5. An operative had previously advised her that further works would be carried out to the roof in the spring/summer.
6. Roofers had not arrived on 24 September 2021. The landlord advised her that it had did not have a record of a job booked, only for 27 September.
7. On 27 September 2021, she called the landlord as she assumed the roofer had not arrived. However, she was informed that a roofer had attended but had found no leak and no further action would be taken.
8. She requested assurance that the roof would be cleaned on a consistent basis, and that all roof works would be completed before her property was due to be plastered and decorated in October 2021.
9. The experience she had received had been inadequate, notes were not recorded, and jobs not logged.
10. She wished to know why she was being charged for a main aerial which she did not have, adding that she had never had a working aerial in the property.
11. The block was not cleaned, rubbish was on the front steps and gate, and there was a lolly stain “from years ago.” She asked for confirmation on when the caretaker attended the block.
On 6 October 2021, a further leak was reported by a neighbour in the block.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 18 October 2021. It confirmed:
1. A works order was issued for the roofing team to trace and remedy a leak affecting the communal area. Operatives attended on 12 January 2021, where they swept the roof and unblocked three outlets.
2. A second works order was issued on 14 September 2021, to remedy the leak, affecting the resident’s bathroom.
3. An appointment was scheduled for 27 September 2021. Operatives attended, unblocked the outlets, and found no other defects.
4. It stated that should a leak occur again, “Fix-R” should be used to seal the roof during dry weather.
5. It was notified that an operative had knocked on the resident’s door, however it was not answered. However, it was able to complete works without access.
6. Previously, the roof was swept on a rota basis, however, it did not find it helpful in determining when a blockage would occur. Therefore, it was dependent on residents reporting leaks before it would attend.
7. A works order had been raised for a plasterer to attend and inspect the ceiling and bedroom walls in the resident’s property.
8. It apologised for the inconvenience and upset the leaks had caused.
9. The resident was advised to speak to her insurance providers regarding damage to personal belongings. If she did not have home contents insurance, she was advised to speak to the Tenancy Services Team.
10. It was unable to deal with the billing aspects for services provided by the landlord, so had written to the Homes and Communities Team (H&C) to ask them to investigate.
11. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised that the resident was affected because of the leak, however it was not because of works or omissions by the repairs team.
12. The resident was advised on how to escalate her complaint.
A follow-on job was raised on 1 November 2021, for a painter to paint the resident’s bathroom ceiling, following the plastering works.
On 13 December 2021, the resident completed an online complaint form stating that she had sent numerous emails to the landlord, following receipt of the stage one response. She requested to know why no-one was responding, despite advising the landlord that she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The landlord’s internal correspondence confirmed an email was sent on 24 December 2021, to the H&C team, to ask it to contact the resident regarding caretaking issues.
On 24 December 2021, the landlord issued a stage one review response. It stated:
1. It was sorry that the resident had not received a response to her correspondence dated 1 November 2021. The officer involved with the case had been away unexpectedly.
2. The repairs team were not conducting the roofs and guttering programme and it was dependent on residents reporting blocked guttering.
3. The repairs team had been extremely busy and had received a high number of calls. However, it had introduced a new model of working, with increased resource for front end calls. It apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident in trying to get through.
4. The H&C team would contact the resident regarding the aerial and caretaking issues.
5. The repairs team would make contact regarding works to the resident’s property because of the leak.
6. It empathised with the inconvenience and disturbance caused to the resident in having operatives in her home.
7. It acknowledged the difficulties experienced when the communal areas became slippery, and the communal lighting was affected.
8. It offered £25 for the delay in response and £50 for the inconvenience caused.
9. The resident was advised on how to escalate her complaint to the Chief Executive stage of the complaints process.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord cancelled the follow-on works to the resident’s bathroom (at the resident’s request) after she reported that the roof was leaking again. The landlord raised an order for an operative to attend.
On 12 January 2022, the resident submitted a webform complaint escalation, stating:
1. She was not satisfied with the response, and her complaint had been ongoing for a number of months.
2. The leak had not been resolved.
3. She was being charged for a main aerial that she stated she did not have.
4. She was upset that nothing had been done, and with the lack of action taken to resolve the issues.
On 17 January 2022, the resident reported another leak from the roof, affecting her bathroom ceiling. The landlord raised a works order, detailing an operative advised in September 2021 that the roof would need re-sealing if a further leak occurred.
An operative attended and cleared the outlet pipes on 24 January 2022. It further confirmed that the “roof doesn’t need sealing, it had been felted.”
The landlord issued a Chief Executive stage response on 4 October 2022. It confirmed:
1. It was sorry for the delay in issuing a response and offered £100 compensation.
2. It apologised for the ongoing leaks but had completed works in January 2021 when the roof was swept, and outlets unblocked.
3. The works “partially resolved” the slippery stairwell and lighting issues but the design of the block meant changes could not be made, and extra care should be taken when it rained.
4. Further works were carried out in September 2021, when three outlets were unblocked.
5. It acknowledged the resident’s concern of having to have a leak and report it before an attempt was made to clear any blockages.
6. The roof and guttering programme was ineffective, due to cost and resources.
7. It could not confirm that the H&C Team had contacted the resident regarding the communal services and so partially upheld the complaint.
8. Charges for the main aerial would apply, irrespective of whether the resident was using it or not, and no refund was due.
9. On 24 January 2022, further roofing works were carried out, but the roof did not need to be resealed as it was felted.
10. The resident had requested an operative inspect her bathroom following leaks. An operative identified the source of the leak as an outlet on the roof, above the resident’s bathroom, and did not require access to her property.
11. It apologised for the resident’s experience of miscommunication between departments and advised this would be raised with departmental heads and ensure unison with staff in communicating.
12. It “understood caretaking cleaning was done weekly” however, issues had been identified that needed resolving.
13. It awarded £75 compensation during stage one for the inconvenience caused and the delay in replying to the request for a review. In addition, if offered £100 for a delay in this response.
14. The resident was advised on how to escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Events after completion of internal complaints process:

On 7 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction that:
1. Her complaint had taken over a year to be investigated, and nothing had been done to resolve her issues.
2. She was concerned with the landlord’s lack of action to address the leak, which she stated was a health and safety issue.
3. She had slipped down the stairwell and was seven months pregnant at that time.
4. She was fearful of using the stairwell, noting that it was not because of weather conditions, but because of the run-off from the top floor, down to the ground floor, and over the stairwell.
5. She was worried about the damage caused to her property, as well as the mould caused from the constant leaks.
6. As far as she was aware, she was paying for a communal aerial that she had never had signal for and questioned why she was being charged.
7. She requested confirmation of when the caretaker was on site and what jobs were completed.
8. She advised the communal block had been cleaned since her complaint, but prior to that, it did not appear to be cleaned properly or routinely.
9. The windows had been cleaned for the first time in eight years. She had been advised by the landlord that responsible staff would make contact, but she has not been contacted.
10. She had waited over a year for a response, yet the issues were unresolved.
11. The resident requested support to escalate her complaint to this Service.
It is unclear if the landlord responded at this point to the resident’s concerns.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord’s repair records confirmed that the residents ceiling was painted, after the previous plastering works had been completed in 2021.
The resident notified this Service in November 2022 that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, and wanted the leaks to be repaired, to ensure there was no further damage to her property and that the communal cleaning service was provided.

Assessment and findings

Leaks to the roof

It is not in dispute that the landlord was responsible for maintaining and repairing the roof to the resident’s building. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of the property.
In accordance with this obligation, the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and to put right any issues which it identified as its responsibility.
In January 2021, the resident reported an “ongoing leak” which had caused water to flood the communal stairwell making it slippery and hazardous. In accordance with the landlord’s caretaking manual, floors, stairs, and stairwells should be swept on a weekly basis and cleared of any health and safety hazards.
Despite the resident’s reports of the stairwell being hazardous and slippery because of the leak, the landlord did not complete a communal inspection until 29 January 2021. This was not in accordance with its policy, which details weekly inspections. Furthermore, the delay in carrying out an inspection does not demonstrate that the landlord appropriately considered the concerns of the resident, or that it acted promptly to identify a possible health and safety risk.
The inspection report provided did not detail what, if any checks had been carried out to identify hazards on the stairwell. Given that the resident informed the landlord that the top floor stairwell was dangerous and slippery, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it had taken steps to minimise the risk of the resident, or others, injuring themselves. Taking such action would have demonstrated that the landlord had taken the resident’s report seriously.
The leak was temporarily resolved on 12 January 2021, and the landlord was required to “make good” the damage caused to the resident’s ceilings, following completion of the repair. Although its policy does not specify a timescale for works to be completed, this Service would expect the landlord to have completed works within a reasonable timeframe, to prevent further inconvenience to the resident. The landlord took eight months to repair the resident’s ceiling. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an explanation for the significant delay in remedying the damage caused. In addition, this Service has not been provided with any evidence demonstrating that the delay in carrying out the works was unavoidable.
During the repair works to the roof in January 2021, the landlord was made aware that the roof needed felting, as water was penetrating the upstands. The resident, and others in the block indicated that the issue was worse in the winter, during heavy periods of rain. It was understandable that the landlord did not consider it was appropriate to felt in the winter months and waited for drier months. However, while its reasoning was reasonable, it has not shown that it considered other “temporary fixes” at that time, or effectively communicated this decision with the resident. Nor did it provide reassurance that interim works would be considered if the situation worsened. This was especially important, due to the time of year.
Following a subsequent leak in September 2021, in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord was obliged to treat the report as a “recall” and fix the problem within five working days. On this instance, the landlord did not attend for 25 days. It is not clear why the landlord did not attend sooner; however, that it did not was a departure from its policy and was unreasonable in the circumstances. Furthermore, a recommendation had been made in January 2021 to reseal the roof if there were further leaks, but the evidence does not confirm that the landlord reconsidered this during its repair. This indicates a failing in the landlord’s handing of the matter; that it was not keeping track of the matter, or that it was unaware of the history of the repair.
The landlord has not provided communal inspection reports for July, August, or September 2021. An inspection was completed in October 2021; however, the report lacked detail, and failed to show that it was aware of the risks identified by the resident in September 2021, or that an assessment of the area had been completed. The lack of urgency would have further compounded the resident’s concerns for her safety, and her belief that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
The resident’s complaint in September 2021, provided the landlord with an opportunity to scrutinise previous repair reports within the block and consider the follow-on works that had been recommended. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware that the leak was reported as an “ongoing issue” by the resident in July 2020, and had been reported by the resident, and others in the block on 13 separate occasions between 2017 and 2021.
As the evidence shows that issues with the roof were ongoing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered older reports as part of the background of the complaint to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issues, and to resolve the issue for the resident.
The resident had requested that the landlord reinstate the roof and gutter programme. This was a reasonable request, given that some of the leaks occurred after a build-up on the roof, or following a blockage in the gutters.
Although the landlord acknowledged within its stage one response that the programme was not effective, it did not offer an alternative solution to the resident. It is unclear what the landlord based its assessment on, however, it would appear to have been a reasonable option to reconsider, given the number of reported leaks over a prolonged period. While the landlord was not obliged to complete a roof and gutter programme, it was obligated to keep its roofs and gutters in repair, and free from blockages. For that reason, it would have been appropriate for it to explore what steps it could take to resolve the issue; and to communicate this with the resident.
The resident was not reassured at this stage and was caused further distress by the landlord who confirmed that it would attend blockages after leaks were reported. While residents are expected to report repair issues for the landlord to be put on notice of the repair, the landlord’s response was inappropriate, and concerning. It placed most of the responsibility onto the resident, despite being aware that there was a long-standing issue, demonstrating a reactive rather than proactive approach, which was not resolution focused.
The landlord took some appropriate steps, which it believed would resolve the issue. This included clearing blockages and sealing cracks. This approach was positive and reasonable in that it temporarily resolved the leak after each repair. However, the remedial action taken thus far has not resolved the issue and has only provided temporary fixes.
In scrutinising its records, the landlord reasonably should have been aware of a further leak in October 2021, 12 days before it issued its stage one response. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord was either not aware of the report or did not link the reports together. This is an indication that the landlord looked at the resident’s reports in isolation, which was counterproductive to completing a thorough investigation into the complaint.
The landlord’s Chief Executive stage response confirmed that works in January 2021 had “partially” resolved the issue. It added that it was unable to redesign the building, and as such, extra care should be taken when the stairwell was wet. The resident did not comment on the building design, rather, requested assurances that the landlord would resolve the leak, and reduce the risk of water flooding through the stairwell. The landlord’s response lacked empathy to the situation the resident was faced with, did not adequately address her concerns, or offer solutions on how it intended to resolve the issue.
While the landlord appropriately apologised for the inconvenience the ongoing issue caused, it failed to put things right. It would have been appropriate, given the number of leaks reported over a protracted period, for the landlord to have evidenced that it considered conducting a roof survey. That way, it would have satisfied itself whether the leaks were isolated, and not the result of a bigger issue. The Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord took a robust approach in tackling the leaks.
As a result of the failings identified within this report, the Ombudsman has had regard to the landlord’s refunds, compensation, and remedies policy, when considering an order for compensation, which is set out below. As the resident has indicated that the leak has not been satisfactorily resolved, a further order has also been made below.

Communal Cleaning

The resident raised concerns that the communal cleaning was not being done, even though she was paying for the service. The landlord’s caretaking manual sets out that the landlord is responsible for ensuring that “properties and estates are kept clean and in good condition inspections are carried out once a month to assess caretaking standards.” These are conducted by Quality Assurance Officers (QAOs).
This Service has reviewed the repair log which records monthly estate and caretaking inspections as “waiting to start” from August 2017 until February 2022. This Service requested clarification on the matter, but the landlord did not provide a response on why its inspections were logged this way. However, it did provide some communal cleaning inspection reports.
There are gaps in the evidence provided by the landlord, specifically relating to inspections for July, August, and September 2021. The month of September 2021 was particularly important to review, due to the health and safety concerns raised by the resident that month.
In accordance with the caretaking manual, the stairs should be cleaned and cleared of any hazards on a weekly basis. The gap in evidence does not demonstrate that communal inspections were carried out routinely, or in line with its policy. Furthermore, the lack of detail provided in the reports does not conclude that issues that had been reported were inspected, or given the attention needed. As a result, the landlord was unable to provide reassurance to the resident that it had dealt with the matter, or what measures it could put in place to reduce any health and safety risks. The resident was led to believe that “nothing was done,” causing distress.
The landlord’s stage one response failed to address the aspect of the communal cleaning entirely. As such, it failed to act in accordance with its complaint policy which states that responses “should address all of the complainant’s concerns.” The response did not identify what, if anything had gone wrong, and therefore was unable to confirm how it would put things right.
The stage one review response issued on 24 December 2021, failed again to meaningfully engage with this aspect of the resident’s complaint, advising the resident that it had written to the H&C Team regarding the matter. The evidence confirms that the landlord did not email the H&C Team regarding the resident’s concerns until 24 December 2021, three months after she had submitted her initial complaint. It did not show that it took ownership of the complaint, nor was it reasonable that it only followed this up following the residents complaint escalation.
Within the landlord’s Chief Executive stage response, the landlord identified that there were “issues” with the caretaking services, which needed resolving. The landlord did not elaborate on what the issues were, or confirm what it would do to prevent the issue from continuing. This was not a reasonable response.
It is not possible from the evidence provided for this Service to confidently confirm how long the service was impacted for. However, in acknowledging there were issues, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have gone further in considering whether the resident was entitled to a refund, for a period where she did not receive this service. The landlord does not appear to have considered this, in line with its refunds, compensation and remedies policy.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning at the block, and little in the way of evidence to demonstrate coordinated and regular monitoring of standards. This led to time and trouble for the resident in pursuing the matter as well as living with an unreasonable standard of communal cleaning. The landlord has not shown that it attended the block at any point during the complaint or that it met with the resident to allow her the opportunity to point out the areas with which she was dissatisfied. This would have been a reasonable action for the landlord to take.

Communal television aerial

The resident first notified the landlord about the issue with the communal aerial in her complaint on 27 September 2021. She said that “she didn’t have one” and asked why she was paying a service charge.
The landlord’s stage one response confirmed it was not able to deal with the billing aspects of her complaint and referred the matter to the H&C team. The landlord could have done more here to ascertain the nature of the complaint, i.e., whether the resident had a main aerial or whether this was a repair issue, to ensure it fully understood the complaint and that it was passed to the most appropriate team.
The landlord did not at any stage ensure that the resident had received a response to this aspect of her complaint, only following up after she had escalated her complaint. The landlord’s failure to follow this up delayed action being taken, which was a failing in the matter.
Within the landlord’s Chief Executive stage response, issued on 4 October 2022, the landlord partially upheld the complaint as it had not seen evidence that the resident had been contacted about the issue with the aerial. Again, the landlord missed an opportunity to investigate the issue, or treat the matter as a repair (if appropriate). This did not demonstrate a proactive response to addressing the issue raised.
Overall, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a meaningful response in relation to this aspect of her complaint. The resident did not know whether she had an aerial, or what she was paying for. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided some explanation about why the resident was paying for the service. The landlord failed to do this and advised the resident that she would have to pay, irrespective of whether she was using the aerial or not. As such, the landlord missed the opportunity to provide a reasonable explanation and help the resident understand the charge.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint process, in place at the time of the complaint, comprised of three stages. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code highlights 2-stage complaints procedures being the “ideal.” By introducing a stage one review, rather than escalating the resident’s complaint to stage two, the landlord delayed the resident in obtaining a final position and in being able to bring the matter to the Ombudsman Service. This was inappropriate. This Service understands that the landlord has recently reviewed its complaint procedure, which is compliant with the Code and therefore an order to review its process has not been made.
The landlord’s complaint policy details that it is “important to keep to the published timescales for dealing with complaints. However, if more time is needed to conduct a full investigation, the landlord should contact the resident to agree a reasonable extension of the timescale.” In this case, the landlord failed to keep the resident suitably informed of delays. This was not in line with the obligations, set out in its policy, and resulted in unreasonable time and delay caused to the resident in pursuing the matter.
The resident notified the landlord on 19 October 2021, that she was dissatisfied with the stage one response and requested an escalation of her complaint. The resident confirmed that she had sent numerous emails and had received no response from the landlord. The resident had to pursue the landlord for a response, which it completed, after a further follow up email was sent by the resident on 13 December 2021. As a result, the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time pursuing her complaint.
During the complaint, the resident mentioned damage to personal belongings. Within the stage one complaint response, the landlord provided advice about claiming for the items on her own insurance or contacting its tenancy team. This response was not entirely appropriate as it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided details of its liability insurance, to allow the resident to make a claim for any loss she incurred because of the leaks. That it did not was a failing.
The stage one review response was issued on 24 December 2021, 53 calendar days after the resident requested an escalation, and 43 calendar days outside of the landlord’s 10 calendar days timescale.
The complaint response at the Chief Executive stage was issued on 5 October 2022, 266 days after the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. The landlord’s policy confirms that responses at this stage of its complaints process will be issued within 28 calendar days. This was a significant departure from its own policy timeframe which caused substantial delay in the resident escalating her complaint to this Service. The landlord has not evidenced that holding responses were sent during this time to manage the resident’s expectations and provide reassurance that a response would be provided.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not meaningfully engage with all aspects of the complaint and there were failures which the landlord did not acknowledge and/or offer redress for. Because of this, the resident was detrimentally impacted by the considerable time and delay the landlord took in providing complaint responses. The landlord recognised and apologised for the delays with issuing complaint responses. It offered a compensation sum of £175 for the inconvenience caused to the resident because of this. This level of compensation offered is not reflective of the amounts set in its compensation policy or proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident by the failings in complaint handling. A further order has been made on this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks from the roof.
2. Reports that the communal cleaning service was not being provided.
3. Reports that the communal TV aerial was not working, and her request for the service charge to be removed.
4. Complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her request for charges for the storage sheds to be removed is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Request for charges for storage sheds to be removed

Reasons

Although the landlord raised multiple repairs to the roof, these did not resolve the issue within a reasonable time. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord was diligent in assessing what repairs would be required to proactively resolve the matter.
The landlord did not appropriately engage with the resident’s reports of issues with the communal cleaning. It also failed to evidence that the cleaning service was being provided in accordance with the caretaking manual. It failed to provide the resident with details on how it would monitor the standards going forward.
The landlord failed to demonstrate a proactive approach to addressing the resident’s concern regarding the aerial. It delayed notifying the H&C Team regarding the matter and therefore led the resident to feel that the landlord was not taking appropriate action.
Although the landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses, it failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint and did not respond within its own timeframe. Because of the poor complaint handling, the resident was delayed in bringing the matter to this Service.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
1. Pay the resident a total sum of £1575 compensation, comprised of:

i. £1000 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the leaks.

ii. £375 for the adverse effect caused by its complaint handling failures.

iii. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint about communal cleaning and not providing a response to her request for a refund.

iv. If the compensation of £175 offered during the complaints procedure has been paid to the resident, this should be deducted from the total above.

The landlord should contact the resident to confirm if any further leaks have occurred. If so, it should arrange for an independent survey of the roof to take place within 6 weeks of this report. Within eight weeks, the landlord should then set out a schedule. The survey and accompanying schedule should be shared with this Service, also within eight weeks of this report.
The landlord should provide the resident with its liability insurance details, for her to claim for any damages, if she wishes.
Contact the resident to establish whether her complaint regarding the TV aerial needs to be considered as a repair. If the issue relates to the resident paying a service charge, the landlord should explain its position relating to the service charge.

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:

Review how it records and monitors its caretaking services for this building. Its records should include the frequency of inspections, which should align with the caretaking manual.
Review current practices, and/or develop guidance for its staff, setting out what should happen if caretaking/communal cleaning standards are not met.
The outcome of the above reviews should be shared with this Service, also within six weeks.

Recommendations

Review the merits of reintroducing a roof and guttering programme or an alternative programme which would ensure that the roofs and gutters are cleared and maintained on a regular basis. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service of the measures it has/will put in place regarding this matter.