Lambeth Council (202003014)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003014

Lambeth Council

9 December 2020

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak to the roof of the property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for information for his insurance claim.

Background and Summary of events

2. The resident reported a leak coming from the roof of the property on 14 October 2019. The landlord’s sub-contractor attended on 23 October but could not find the source of the leak. The repair job was subsequently closed.
3. On 20 December 2019 at 11am, due to water penetration from the roof, the landlord raised a job for a tarpaulin to be fitted within two hours. It later transpired that this work was not done.
4. The resident contacted his insurer on 22 December 2019 to advise that he had sought information to support his claim for water damage to his property. He said that he had been told by the landlord that the insurer worked directly with the landlord and was meant to make contact itself. The insurer subsequently wrote to the landlord on 30 December and requested information in relation to any issues or repair work done on the property, since the resident became the leaseholder in 2016.
5. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord and said he was dissatisfied with its actions so far to resolve the roof leak problem.
6. On 4 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it would attend on 12 February to fit a tarpaulin sheet and complete an inspection of the roof. The landlord acknowledged that its contractor would need to call the building caretaker for access to the roof.
7. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 27 February 2020 to confirm that it would inspect the roof on 5 March.
8. The resident and his insurer continued to ask the landlord to provide information about the dates of issues with the roof, when these were reported, and what had happened since the resident became a leaseholder in 2016.
9. The landlord responded on 3 March 2020. It explained that leaseholders should obtain information for insurers about works and repairs directly from the landlord’s contractors. If leaseholders had problems in obtaining the information from the contractor, “which should not be the case”, they could contact the landlord’s leasehold services.
10. Nonetheless, the landlord explained that, following the report of a leak on 14 October 2019, its subcontractor attended on 23 October but could not find where the leak was coming from. The job was then closed on 24 October. A repair job was raised on 19 December but had subsequently been cancelled due to “non access visits” on 7 January, and 4, 11 and 13 February 2020. The landlord advised that its contractor claimed appointment letters had been sent, along with phone confirmation of the appointments. It suggested that the resident contact the contractor to discuss the matter if he disputed the non-access visits, and obtain any further information required for the insurers.
11. The resident responded on the same day and explained that he had not received any correspondence about visits from the landlord or contractor via telephone, email or letter. He said that the only dialogue occurred through him telephoning the landlord and subcontractor multiple times.
12. On 14 March 2020 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the leak. He explained that no action had been taken by the landlord to repair it and, on 23 October 2019, he had been informed by the contractor that further investigation was required. He had not been aware that the repair was then closed on 24 October 2019 without further investigation.
13. The resident explained that water penetrated the roof on 19 December 2019, and he had spoken directly with the landlord’s surveyor. He said he was assured that an emergency works order had been logged, and a temporary measure would be in place to stop the water penetration within a few days. The resident said that this measure would address the immediate issue of water ingress into the property, and also allow the contractor time to investigate the cause of the leak and work out a final solution. However, he said that no temporary or long-term measure had been undertaken. He said he had subsequently chased the landlord on 29 December and was again assured by the surveyor that a temporary measure would be put in place immediately. However, that did not happen. He explained that a contractor had attended on 31 December, but he had said that he did not “do roofs” and then left, leaving the resident to continue to call the landlord without resolution.
14. The resident also explained that his insurers requested information about the property’s history – specifically when the leak was reported and the response from the landlord. The resident said he had contacted the landlord directly for this information at the start of January 2020 and:
    1. Initially the landlord had said it would liaise directly with the insurer and that it would forward the necessary information.
    2. The landlord then ignored multiple emails from the insurers.
    3. Over a month later the landlord responded, advising that the resident had to request this information directly from the contractor.
    4. After another telephone call, the contractor had said it could not provide the information directly. The resident was therefore directed back to the landlord.
    5. After numerous phone calls, with numerous departments, he was assured by the landlord that the relevant information would be forwarded within ten working days. This did not happen.
15. On 1 May 2020 the insurer advised the landlord that the resident was still unable to clarify what the current issue was for the leak, or what the fix was. This information was needed to allow the resident to progress any insurance claim.
16. The landlord responded to the complaint on 22 May 2020. It explained that a work order was raised to remedy the leak, a contractor attended and that the works were now complete (it did not say when this had happened).  It said that the resident should complete a missed appointment form for each appointment he said had been missed.  Finally, the resident was advised to complete an incident form for his insurance claim. The landlord apologised for the delays with the repairs.
17. On 27 May 2020 (according to the landlord’s later complaint response) the resident asked to escalate his complaint because the roof had finally been “fixed” on 22 May 2020, but it had taken too long to resolve. Additionally, the resident felt that issues with communication and misinformation were not addressed, and said that he was still waiting for information that had been requested to support his insurance claim.
18. The landlord forwarded the resident a roof report on 28 May 2020.
19. On 4 June 2020 the resident forwarded the landlord further information to support his escalation request. He said that his insurer’s request for information had still to be fulfilled, and the insurers had asked frequently since January 2020. The resident acknowledged that he had received “a one-line ‘report’ on the repair to the property (which was carried out
20. last week) and confirmation that [the landlord] had a record of the repair being reported.” The resident explained that his insurers needed more detailed information.
21. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 June 2020. It said that the required information was sent to the insurance company on 3 June 2020.The resident replied on 15 June explaining that, while the landlord did send information, it had not answered the insurer’s subsequent questions.
22. On 19 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord saying that “[the landlord] and their contractors recently claimed to have rectified the leak coming through the external roof into our property. Unfortunately, the “repair” undertaken in May/June 2020 has been insufficient because water is penetrating the property again as of 18 June 2020. I have registered this leak with [the landlord] and been assured that a contractor will inspect the leak within 24hrs.” He explained that the leaking had caused damage to the inside of his home.
23. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 3 July 2020. It acknowledged and apologised for not addressing all the resident’s issues in its initial response. The landlord advised that this would be included in complaints training planned in the near future. It acknowledged that there was a discrepancy between the contacts its contractor said had been made, and the resident’s account of the matter.  The contractor had provided information about appointment letters and telephone calls to the resident.  However, the landlord acknowledged that it was “difficult to suppose that you would agree to an appointment arranged via a phone call for them to attend on 7January 2020 and then provide no access.” The landlord noted that its contractor said there were further attempts to gain access on 4 and 10 February 2020 but, as these appointments were not confirmed with the resident, it could not be said that the resident had failed to provide access.
24. Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged that:
    1. There was a failure by a sub-contractor, who did not inform the contractor that further investigation of the roof was required, which led to the initial works order being closed.
    2. Its surveyor stated that a tarpaulin was to be fitted within two hours on 20 December 2019, which would have greatly reduced any water impact into the resident’s home. But this had not been done.
    3. Two of the work orders stated that the caretaker should be contacted for access to the roof, and in the resident’s complaint of 30 December 2019, he had advised that the caretaker had said nobody had accessed the roof.
    4. On 19 May repair works were carried out to the guttering. The main pitched roof and chimney stack had seemed in good order.
    5. On 17 June it had sent the resident’s correspondence to the relevant service manager, advising that the information provided was not sufficient for his insurance company to process his claim. As it received no further contact from the resident regarding this matter, it had assumed that the information requested had been provided. It asked the resident to let it know if this was not the case.
    6. On 18 June the resident experienced a further leak into his property. The contractor confirmed that this had been reported on same date and they had sent another roofer who had “unblocked outlets, cleaned out 40m of box gutter”.
25. The landlord apologised that the resident was “put to the trouble and inconvenience of having to chase …for this repair to be completed and for the information requested to progress your insurance claim. In conclusion, your complaint is upheld. As such, I am awarding compensation of £150 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and for the delays you have experienced.” The resident was advised how he could refer his complaint to this Service, if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and Findings

Repairs

26. As freeholder of the building, the landlord is responsible for the exterior and structure of the building, which includes the roof. Accordingly, when the resident reported the leak from the roof, the landlord was required to attend the property, identify the issue and take steps to remedy the problem. Any leaseholder would usually be responsible for the internal decorations in their home, and damage to such decorations would generally be expected to be compensated through the resident’s home insurance. However, in any case where a landlord’s actions, or inaction, have contributed to problems or damage, the landlord would be expected to consider providing some form of appropriate remedy. This could include redecoration work, or compensation.
27. Based on the information provided, it is evident that some repair actions were not undertaken within an appropriate period of time. For example, when the landlord’s contractor attended on 23 October 2019, the resident was informed that further investigation of the leak was needed. The landlord therefore should have raised a further inspection. Instead, the repair was closed on 24 October without further work. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 December and expressed his dissatisfaction with its lack of action to remedy the problem, but there is no evidence of further communication regarding the repair until 4 February 2020.
28. The landlord raised an emergency repair on 20 December 2019 to fit a tarpaulin to the roof within two hours. This would have greatly reduced the water impact, as stated by the landlord, but the work was not done. As confirmed in the landlord’s complaint response, there were further examples of appointments raised by the landlord where there is no evidence of the contractor attending. These included: 12 February 2020 to fit a tarpaulin sheet and complete an inspection of the roof, and 5 March to inspect the roof.
29. The evidence shows that the landlord was attempting to take the repairs forward in January and February 2020, but that its contractors could not gain access. The landlord considered this issue in its final complaint response. It acknowledged that some of the contractor’s attempted visits had not been arranged with the resident, and that the resident was unlikely to have not provided access for the occasions when the appointments had been arranged with him. Accordingly, the landlord’s investigation of the matter indicates that the cause of at least some of the failed appointments was more likely to have been the contractors than the resident.
30. Ultimately, the landlord failed to undertake the temporary remedies it had identified as short-term solutions (i.e. the tarpaulins), and problems with its contractor’s attempts to undertake work in early 2020 caused delays to the leak. These resulted in the resident needing to chase the landlord to resolve the matter, and had the potential to worsen the internal damage he had explained he was experiencing. The landlord acknowledged these failings. To put things right it apologised, completed the works, and offered a token of compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
31. The landlord did not explain the break down of its £150 compensation between the two issues of: its delayed repairs; and its handling of the resident’s insurance information requests (which is considered below). Presumably, half was intended for the repair problems. If so, £75 was not a fair and reasonable remedy in comparison to the scale and impact of the failings the landlord identified and acknowledged. Because of that the landlord’s repair service failings remained unresolved.

Request for insurance information

32. It goes without saying that it is good practice and customer service for a landlord to respond to correspondence within a reasonable timeframe, and to provide accurate information or, if the information cannot be provided, explain why.
33. Following contact from the resident, his insurer wrote to the landlord on 30 December. It requested information about issues or jobs done on the property since the resident became the leaseholder in 2016.
34. After further correspondence from the resident, the landlord explained on 3 March 2020 that the resident (as the leaseholder) should obtain information for his insurers directly from its contractors. On 14 March the resident told the landlord that the contractors had directed him back to the landlord for the information. After telephoning the landlord, he was assured that the relevant information would be forwarded within ten working days. This did not happen.
35. The landlord’s final response acknowledged that the resident requested repair reports on 4 March 2020 and again on 27 May. It confirmed that the requested information had been sent on 3 June but, on 15 June, the resident replied that the information sent did not answer the questions the insurers had asked. On 17 June 2020 this request was sent to the relevant service manager to address, and the landlord assumed the matter had been resolved as it had not heard further from the resident.
36. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in providing the required information for the insurance claim, and the resident’s actions in having to chase the matter. However, it did not acknowledge the resident’s insurer’s previous request in December 2019, or the misinformation it provided when it directed the resident to its contractors for the information his insurers needed. These omissions mean the landlord’s complaint investigations were incomplete.
37. As with the repairs issue above, the landlord’s compensation offer of £75 for the inconvenience and frustration experienced by the resident was disproportionately low, and not a fair and reasonable remedy.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak to the roof of the property.
39. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for information for his insurance claim.

Orders

40. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 for its service failures relating to the leak to the roof of the property.
    2. Pay the resident £125 for its service failures relating to the resident’s request for information for his insurance claim.
    3. These payments are in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord in its complaint investigation, which the landlord should also now pay if it has not already done so.
41. These payments should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Reasons

42. The landlord unreasonably delayed in undertaking repairs to the roof of the property, and in providing information to the resident and his insurer for his insurance claim. While it acknowledged some of its service failures in its complaint investigations, it did not provide a suitable remedy for them.