Lambeth Council (202118662)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118662

Lambeth Council

22 May 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a roof leak, damp and associated health and safety concerns.
2. The resident’s associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

The property is a five-bedroom terraced house and the resident has a secure tenancy, which began on 24 August 2005.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property, which includes the roof. The landlord is also obliged to carry out any decorating which is needed as a result of repairs that are the landlord’s responsibility.
On 17 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to report signs of a leak occurring from the roof in the bedroom and other areas due to heavy rain. The resident advised the landlord that in the past, operatives had used the loft hatch to access the roof to inspect and carry out repairs.
The resident sent a formal stage one complaint to the landlord on 26 May 2021 and stated that it had been six working days since his repair request, and he had not received an acknowledgement. The landlord replied on the same day and confirmed that an order had been raised in relation to the roof. The landlord apologised that the contractor had not yet contacted the resident to book an appointment.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord between 1 and 14 June 2021 requesting information about the roofing job. He also requested the complaint reference number from the landlord.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 June 2021 and provided the complaint reference number. The landlord confirmed that the resident would receive a reply to his complaint by 19 July 2021.
On 12 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and reported that the situation regarding the roof leak and resulting damp had worsened due to more rain and the plaster around the damp area was starting to come away from the wall in the hallway. The resident stated that the plaster could collapse and was therefore a health and safety concern.
On 13 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting information about the roofing job, such as the date it had been raised, the appointment date and the expected completion date. The resident thanked the landlord for its telephone calls and voice messages left on 12 July 2021 regarding his complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 July 2021 and confirmed that the roofing job would be passed to a new contractor that had started on 12 July 2021. The landlord advised the resident that the new contractor would contact the resident within the next two weeks to arrange an appointment.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 20 July 2021, in which it explained that the original job had been passed to its contractor for a roof inspection. However, because the landlord was in the process of changing contractors, the order would be passed to the new contractor for completion. The contractor would therefore contact the resident with an appointment. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience during the transition and partly upheld the complaint.
On 4 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and requested it to escalate his complaint to stage two on the basis that the landlord had failed to notify its residents about the change of contractors in advance and the landlord had not yet answered some of his questions regarding the roofing job.
During August 2021, the resident sent further emails to the landlord requesting an appointment for the roofing job and requesting various answers about the job and the change of contractors.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that a new job had been raised for the new contractor to repair the roof leak and the contractor had been instructed by the landlord to contact the resident directly. The resident replied to the landlord on 13 September 2021 and asked for details about the job that had originally been raised and for details regarding the current job, such as the appointment and expected completion date.
The landlord sent its stage two reply on 13 September 2021, in which it responded to various questions raised by the resident. The reply included the following information:
1. The initial repairs order had been raised on 18 May 2021 and the target date for completion was 27 May 2021, but the contractor failed to carry out the repair prior to its departure.
2. The landlord had made a decision to change its contractor on 15 March 2021 and the new contractor started on 12 July 2021. Residents were informed about the change of contractors during July 2021.
3. The landlord acknowledged that there should have been clearer communication with the resident about the change in contractors and apologised for this.
On 14 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and reported that an operative had attended on 13 September 2021 and had informed a member of the resident’s household that scaffolding would be required. The resident requested advanced notification of any future appointments and asked the landlord to provide answers to various questions, such as whether the new contractor had been requested to provide an appointment to inspect the roofing job.
The landlord replied on 15 September 2021 and offered an appointment for a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould on 23 September 2021. The resident wrote to the landlord on the following day and agreed to provide access on 23 September 2021. The resident requested that a roofing surveyor and contractor also attend the inspection.
On 20 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and provided a detailed timeline of the events since he reported the leak on 17 May 2021. He stated that the landlord had disregarded his concerns about health and safety, and he repeated his request for the planned inspection to also be attended by a roofing surveyor and contractor. He repeated that the roof had previously been inspected by gaining access from the loft hatch. The resident requested that the landlord thoroughly investigate the events. The landlord replied on the same day and stated that a roofing sub-contractor had attended on 13 September 2021 but had not been able to gain access and therefore the landlord had now emailed the contractor for a new appointment.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord attended a joint inspection with a roofing surveyor and the contractor. The landlord agreed to produce a report outlining the outcome of the inspection.
On 1 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord about the roof leak and damp and stated the following:
1. The landlord had failed to produce the report of the findings of the joint inspection on 23 September 2021 by the agreed date.
2. An appointment had been made for the contractor to attend on 1 October 2021 and, although the contractor attended on this date, no work was carried out.
3. The resident enquired whether the landlord had investigated his ‘complaint’ dated 20 September 2021.
The landlord replied to the resident on 1 October 2021, apologised for the delay in confirming the outcome of the joint visit on 23 September 2021 and confirmed the following:
1. A new job had now been raised to unblock the rainwater outlets to the rear, to apply a sealant to the box gutter valley and to re-point the top side of the party wall coping stones. (The landlord’s repairs log shows that the repairs were to be completed within 28 days, i.e. by 4 November 2021).
2. The landlord had identified that the property was being affected by rainwater running from a neighbouring property. The landlord had therefore included instructions within the job to re-run the downpipe from the adjoining property back to the neighbour’s premises.
3. The landlord had arranged for correspondence to be sent to the owner of the adjoining property to repair their roof as defects to their roof could be contributing to the water ingress into the resident’s property.
4. The landlord had raised a follow-on job to carry out internal remedial works to redecorate the top floor front bedroom, to repair the plaster in the hallway and to redecorate the affected areas.
5. The landlord had requested the contractor to contact the resident for appointment dates to carry out the work.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7, 11 and 25 October 2021 and stated:
1. The contractor had not yet contacted him with an appointment.
2. The landlord had indicated at the joint visit in September 2021 that the chimney required works, but this had not been included in the resulting job. Also, the internal remedial work should include decoration to the damp caused by the leak in the toilet.
3. The landlord had failed to raise all of the repairs agreed at the September 2021 joint visit and had not provided an appointment to carry out the work.
4. The resident asked about the action the landlord had taken in response to his complaints dated 20 September and 1 October 2021 and requested information, such as the expected completion date for the repairs.
On 6 December 2021, the resident submitted a new stage one complaint about the roof and damp issues. He provided a photo of the damp patch in the hallway and repeated his concerns about a health and safety concern regarding the plaster. The resident requested various information as part of the complaint, including the expected completion dates in relation to the orders that had been raised.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 January 2022, 14 February 2022 and 7 March 2022 requesting a reply to his stage one complaint.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 9 March 2022, in which it apologised for the delay in replying and stated the following:
1. The roofing work had been completed on 14 December 2021.
2. The internal decoration of the living room and replastering to the hallway were completed on 24 February 2022.
On 14 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested it to escalate his complaint to stage two on the basis that:
1. The landlord had not fully investigated his complaint.
2. The repairs reported on 17 May 2021 had not been completed.
3. The work agreed at the joint inspection on 23 September 2021 had not been completed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 March 2022 and listed the following repairs, which he advised were still outstanding:
1. The rainwater outlet from the adjoining property had not been unblocked.
2. The downpipe from the adjoining property had not been re-run to ensure rainwater from the neighbouring property did not affect the resident’s property.
3. No work had been carried out to the toilet flat roof.
4. The plasterwork in the hallway had not been addressed, despite the resident’s concerns about it being a health and safety issue.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 April 2022 to request an extension of time to respond to the stage two complaint. The landlord confirmed it would reply by 5 May 2022.
On 5 May 2022, the landlord sent its stage two reply in which it stated the following:
1. A further joint visit would be arranged involving the landlord and contractor to ensure that all of the works had been completed.
2. The landlord apologised for the various delays that had occurred in relation to the repairs.
3. The landlord gave the resident a named contact for the contractor, who would follow the matter through to completion. The landlord requested the resident to contact him in order to arrange the completion of the internal work.
4. On 14 December 2021, the roofing contractor re-bedded coping stones, carried out repointing, fitted new lead flashing, painted the chimney with Aquapol coating, cleared two box gutters and applied Aquapol coating.
5. The landlord upheld the complaint and asked the resident to advise it when the work was completed so that compensation could be calculated.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 May 2022 to say he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two reply because, in the resident’s view, the landlord had failed to answer several of the points within his complaint. The resident provided extracts from various emails he had sent previously. The resident requested the landlord to provide the earliest appointment dates to complete the outstanding work.
On 11 July 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a further complaint about the roof, damp and the associated health and safety concern. The resident provided a timeline of the various events and stated that the landlord had not acted on the information he sent on 25 March 2022 listing the outstanding repairs. The resident requested answers to several questions.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 August 2022 with its stage one reply, in which it stated that the roofing job had been completed on 11 October 2021. The resident replied on 27 September 2022 and requested the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two on the basis of:
1. The landlord had disregarded the points raised in his stage one complaint.
2. An appointment had not been arranged for the contractor to attend on 11 October 2021 and therefore the contractor did not attend on this date (the resident asked whether the landlord had evidence to show that work was carried out on this date).
On 28 October 2022, the contractor wrote to the resident and confirmed that an appointment had been booked for 29 November 2022 to carry out redecorations to the living room and hallway. The resident replied on 31 October 2022 to agree the appointment.
On 1 November 2022, the landlord sent its stage two reply which included the following points:
1. The landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the repairs and for the resident’s time and effort spent escalating the issues.
2. The landlord accepted that its communication should have been better when it changed contractors.
3. The contractor’s notes showed that the roof repairs were completed on 14 December 2021 and the landlord attached photos to show the work that was carried out.
4. The landlord’s file notes showed that there was a ‘no access’ visit on 13 September 2021, but the landlord had not been able to clarify whether this had been a pre-arranged appointment.
5. In terms of the internal works, the work to the living room was carried out on 30 August 2022 and the work to the hallway was due to be done on 29 November 2022.
On 14 December 2022, the resident submitted a new stage one complaint about the roof leak, damp and associated internal health and safety concerns. The resident listed the various events that had occurred in relation to his previous complaints about the same issues. The resident again referred to his email dated 25 March 2022, in which he had listed the outstanding works. He also stated that previous complaint responses had not addressed the specific questions that were included in his complaints. The following are some of the other points included in the resident’s email:
1. An operative had attended on 29 November 2022 to carry out the plastering in the hallway as per the agreed appointment. However, the operative had said he was unable to carry out the work because a staircase tower was required.
2. The contractor advised the resident that the earliest appointment date when a staircase tower could be arranged was 23 January 2023. However, neither the landlord or contractor had written to the resident to confirm the appointment.
On 17 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask why he had not yet received a reply to his stage one complaint.
On 20 January 2023, the landlord sent its stage one reply, in which it stated that the roofing jobs had been completed and the plastering work was scheduled for 23 January 2023.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 January 2023 and requested the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two. The resident advised the landlord that the operative who attended on 23 January 2023 had failed to carry out any repairs.
Following a voicemail message left by the landlord for the resident on 22 February 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord on 24 February 2023 to advise that he would be available for the landlord to carry out a joint inspection on 28 February 2023.
On 27 February 2023, the landlord sent its stage two reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord accepted there had been delays in replying to the resident’s emails sent between September 2021 and 5 May 2022 and it apologised.
2. The source of the health and safety concerns had been the roof repairs, which were completed on 14 December 2021.
3. The redecorations to the living room were completed on 30 August 2022 and the remaining work had been scheduled for 14 October 2022 and then 29 November 2022, but the operatives were unable to gain access on both occasions. The work was then scheduled to take place on 23 January 2023, but the operative was sick and could not attend. The work had therefore been rescheduled to take place on 23 and 24 February 2023 and had been completed on these days.
4. The order to review and repair the guttering would be scheduled by the contractor.
5. The landlord accepted there had been a significant delay in carrying out inspections and the repairs and in its communications. It acknowledged that “the level of service received [had been] completely unacceptable”. This had been brought to the attention of the service department as an area needing strong development.
6. The landlord explained that some of the points in the resident’s complaints had not specifically been addressed because it had focussed on providing an update regarding the works orders, providing appointment dates where possible, providing explanations and apologising for service failures.
7. The landlord concluded that there had been a service failure between the time the issues were reported and the time it took for the works to commence and be completed. It therefore offered the resident £630 in compensation.
In March 2023, there were further exchanges of correspondence between the resident and the landlord, and a joint inspection took place on 10 March 2023 involving the landlord and the contractor.
On 22 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that he was now legally represented by solicitors and the schedule of work and completion time needed to be agreed as per the protocol for housing disrepair. The landlord replied on 31 March 2023 to confirm that the matter would now be dealt with as a disrepair case by its disrepair team.
On 17 April 2023, the resident submitted a new stage one complaint, in which he stated:
1. The damp plaster repair in the hallway had been addressed by the landlord. The resident stated that he had been advised by the operatives that an asbestos test should have been carried out prior to carrying out the plaster repairs.
2. The resident requested information on how the landlord had calculated the compensation figure of £630 and outlined the impact of the delays.
3. The resident outlined concerns regarding contact he had with the contractor in March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident submitted a further stage one complaint on 17 April 2023 regarding the roof leak, damp and health and safety concerns. At the time of this investigation, the resident’s latest complaint had not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process and therefore has not been included in this investigation. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.

The roof leak, damp and associated health and safety concerns

The landlord’s repairs manual sets out five categories for day-to-day repairs:
1. Urgent emergency – attend within two hours and fix within 24 hours.
2. Emergency – fix within one working day.
3. Routine (one) – fix with seven days.
4. Routine (two) – fix within 28 working days.
5. Planned – complete within 90 days.
The resident reported the roof leak on 17 May 2021 by email and was not contacted by the landlord until 26 May 2021, on the day he made a formal complaint. Although the landlord had raised an order on 18 May 2021 for the contractor to inspect the roof, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to advise the resident of this for seven working days. Without such contact from the landlord, the resident was unaware of the action taken by the landlord.
Although the landlord had provided the resident with a job number for the contractor to inspect the roof, the resident had not been given an appointment and this led him to write to the landlord on 1 June 2021, 14 June 2021 and 12 July 2021. The resident highlighted that the damp had affected the plasterwork in the hallway, and he felt that this was a health and safety issue because the plaster could fall on a member of his household. It was not until 20 July 2021 that the resident was advised by the landlord that it had changed contractors and the resident’s job would be passed to the new contractor. Although the contractor phoned the resident on 12 July 2021 regarding his complaint, this Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord contacted the resident to assess the urgency and impact of the roof leak and, for example, to establish whether there were any household vulnerabilities that would increase the priority of the job. The lack of communication by the landlord and the lack of urgency given by the landlord to assessing the impact of the roof leak on the family were unreasonable. Without this communication, theresident was unaware of when the roof was likely to be repaired and he would continue to be concerned that the plaster was a health and safety risk.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord sent its stage one reply, apologised for the delay and explained that the job would be passed to the new contractor. Although the Ombudsman understands that changing contractors causes service disruption, it is important that the process is managed through good communication with residents. In this case, it had taken a formal complaint for the resident to receive an explanation about why there was a delay in carrying out the repair. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide more timely communication to the resident in the form of updates about his repair prior to the stage one reply on 20 July 2021, which was sent more than nine weeks after the resident first reported the problem.
The landlord advised the resident on 20 July 2021 that he would be contacted within two weeks with an appointment date. However, despite chasing the landlord during August 2021 for an appointment, it was not until 23 September 2021 that a joint inspection took place involving the landlord, a roofing surveyor and the contractor. The time taken to arrange the inspection was therefore inappropriate as the landlord had not provided an appointment within a reasonable timescale. The inspection was also the first opportunity taken by the landlord to inspect the areas affected by the damp, despite the resident’s health and safety concerns reported on 12 July 2021. The Ombudsman is not in a position to decide whether the plaster did constitute a health and safety risk, however, it was unreasonable of the landlord to have waited over two months to inspect a defect that had been reported as a health and safety concern by the resident. Also, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord advised the resident whether it considered the plasterwork to be a health and safety risk. This was again unreasonable because the resident had repeatedly expressed his concerns about the safety of his family in relation to the plaster.
The landlord accepted in its stage one reply dated 1 October 2021 that there had been a delay in confirming the outcome of the joint inspection and apologised for this. The apology was appropriate as the landlord had, according to the resident, agreed to send the notes on the following day. The landlord confirmed that the specification of works agreed at the joint visit was to:
1. Unblock the rainwater outlets to the rear.
2. Apply a sealant to the box gutter valley.
3. Re-point the top side of the party wall coping stones.
4. Re-run the downpipe from the adjoining property back to the neighbour’s premises.
5. Redecorate the top floor bedroom.
6. Repair the plaster in the hallway and re-decorate the affected areas.
7. The landlord would also request the neighbour to repair their roof as this was possibly contributing to the water ingress.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 October 2021 and stated that it had also been agreed at the joint inspection that works would be carried out to the chimney. Also, he stated that the redecoration work should include decoration to the damp area caused by the leak in the toilet. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to refuse to carry out these additional works.
The order for the roof work (including diverting the adjoining property’s rainwater pipe) was raised on 1 October 2021 with a target completion date of 4 November 2021. However, by 6 December 2021 the work had not yet commenced and therefore the resident submitted a further stage one complaint. It was inappropriate that the work had not started more than two months after the order was raised on 1 October 2021. The landlord stated on 27 February 2023 that its contractor had failed to gain access on 14 October 2022 and 29 November 2022. However, the evidence indicates that the contractor did gain access on 29 November 2022 but was unable to carry out the work because a staircase tower was needed. Also, the resident stated that the visit on 14 October 2022 had been unannounced, despite his previous requests to be given prior notice of visits.
The evidence indicates that the work to the main roof was completed on 14 December 2021, including applying the sealant to the box gutter valley and the chimney and repointing the top side of the party wall coping stones. These works had therefore taken seven months to complete, which was inappropriate as the timescale for completing the job was 28 days. Although some delay would have been expected following the change of contractors, the overall timescale was excessive.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 March 2022 and listed the following repairs that were still outstanding:
1. Unblocking the rainwater outlet from the adjoining property.
2. Re-running the rainwater downpipe from the adjoining property.
3. Repairing the toilet flat-roof.
4. Replastering the area in the hallway that had been affected by damp.
In terms of the replastering work in the hallway, as previously stated, there was an abortive visit on 29 November 2022 because a staircase tower was needed. A new appointment was therefore booked for 23 January 2023, which the resident had been told was the earliest date available. On 24 January 2023, the resident again reported to the landlord that the operative had attended on this date but had been unable to carry out the work (the landlord confirmed on 27 February 2023 that the operative had been sick). The evidence shows that the replastering was completed on 23 and 24 February 2023. Given that the works to the main roof were completed on 14 December 2021, it was unreasonable that the landlord took a further 14 months to carry out the replastering. Based on the landlord’s priority timescales, the Ombudsman would have expected the job to follow on from the roofing works and to have been raised on a 28-day priority. Furthermore, it was unreasonable for the contractor to be unaware that a staircase tower was needed as it had attended a joint inspection on 23 September 2021 with the landlord.
The evidence indicates that by March 2023, the work to the rainwater outlet and downpipe from the adjoining property and the repairs to the toilet flat roof had not yet been carried out. This is despite the work having been agreed at the joint inspection on 23 September 2021 and the landlord having written to the resident on 1 October 2021 to confirm the contractor would carry out the work. Although the Ombudsman recognises that there are additional considerations when an adjoining property is involved, it was unreasonable that the landlord had failed to address the issues some 18 months after it had identified the problem on 23 September 2021.
On 27 February 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and accepted there had been “a service failure” based on the time taken to deal with the repairs. It therefore offered £630 in compensation. Although this Service welcomes the landlord’s offer to put things right by offering financial redress, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s offer to be proportionate because:
1. The resident reported the roof leak on 17 May 2021, and it took the landlord about seven months to carry out repairs to the main roof.
2. The landlord took about 14 months after the completion of the work to the main roof to replaster the hallway.
3. There was at least one abortive visit by operatives due to the contractor failing to identify the correct equipment needed to carry out repairs, i.e. the need for a staircase tower to replaster the hallway.
4. Despite agreeing that it would carry out work to the rainwater goods belonging to the adjoining property and to the toilet flat roof, the landlord failed to carry out the works.
5. The landlord failed to communicate adequately with the resident during the periods of delay and it was often left to the resident to chase the landlord for updates, including submitting formal complaints.
6. As a result of the delays, the resident spent a great deal of time and effort contacting the landlord and has stated that this was very stressful and disruptive in relation to his travel plans.
The Ombudsman considers that the following is a proportionate amount of financial redress to recognise the delays in carrying out the repairs and the time and effort spent by the resident in pursuing the repairs:
1. £600 for the delay in carrying out the work to the main roof and the associated redecoration of the living room and bedroom.
2. £600 for the delays in inspecting and repairing the plasterwork in the hallway following the resident’s reports of health and safety concerns.
3. £600 for the delay in carrying out work to the rainwater goods belonging to the adjoining property and the toilet flat roof.
The above sums are in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and, although the landlord has acknowledged the failings and made some attempt to put things right, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by the Ombudsman’s investigation.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process:
1. Local resolution stage (stage one) – the landlord will provide a response within 20 working days.
2. The final review stage (stage two) – the complaints policy does not identify a target response time; however, the landlord’s website states that a reply will be sent within 25 working days.
This Service has noted that both of these timescales are longer than those stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (available on the Housing Ombudsman’s website).
During the period covered by this investigation, the resident submitted four stage one and four stage two complaints regarding the roof leak, damp and associated internal works. The dates of the complaints and the replies were as follows:
1. Complaint A stage one – this was sent by the resident on 26 May 2021 and the landlord replied 38 working days later on 20 July 2021.
2. Complaint A stage two – this was sent by the resident on 4 August 2021 and the landlord replied 28 working days later on 13 September 2021.
3. Complaint B stage one – this was sent by the resident on 6 December 2021 and the landlord replied 64 working days later on 9 March 2022.
4. Complaint B stage two – this was sent by the resident on 14 March 2022 and the landlord replied 36 working days later on 5 May 2022.
5. Complaint C stage one – this was sent by the resident on 11 July 2022 and the landlord replied 18 working days later on 4 August 2022.
6. Complaint C stage two – this was sent by the resident on 27 September 2022 and the landlord replied 25 working days later on 1 November 2022.
7. Complaint D stage one – this was sent by the resident on 14 December 2022 and the landlord replied 24 working days later on 20 January 2023.
8. Complaint D stage two – this was sent by the resident on 24 January 2023 and the landlord replied 24 working days later on 27 February 2023.
The longest delay was in relation to complaint B stage one, which took 64 working days for the landlord to reply. This was inappropriate as it was significantly outside both the landlord’s target timescale of 20 working days and the target of ten working days stipulated in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. It meant that the resident had to spend further time and effort writing to the landlord on 24 January 2022, 14 February 2022 and 7 March 2022 to request a reply to his complaint. The stage two reply in relation to complaint B was also late, having taken 36 days, but the landlord had written to the resident on 19 April 2022 to request an extension of time and therefore the response time was broadly in line with its complaints policy.
There was a delay in sending the stage one reply for complaint A. The complaint was submitted on 26 May 2021 and, although the landlord wrote to the resident on the same day and provided a job number, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 23 June 2021. This was inappropriate as the resident had to write to the landlord on four occasions between 1 and 21 June 2021 requesting an update and a complaint reference number. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that complaints must be logged and acknowledged within five days of receipt. The landlord’s email sent on the same day as the complaint may have been an attempt to achieve an early resolution. The Ombudsman encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents and recognises that there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately. However, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that any decision to try and resolve a concern early through local resolution must be taken in agreement with the resident.
There were also shortcomings on the part of the landlord in the time taken to reply to some of the other complaints, with some of the timescales exceeding the targets.
In terms of the content of the landlord’s complaint replies, the Ombudsman has found that some of the replies suggested that the landlord had not sufficiently investigated some of the matters raised by the resident. The following are examples:
1. The landlord’s stage one reply dated 9 March 2022 stated that the replastering to the hallway had been completed on 24 February 2022, whereas the evidence shows that this work was not done until a year later in February 2023 (as acknowledged in the landlord’s letter dated 27 February 2023).
2. The landlord’s stage two reply dated 5 May 2022 listed the roofing work that had been completed on 14 December 2021, but it did not mention the outstanding work listed in the resident’s email dated 25 March 2022.
3. The landlord’s stage one reply dated 4 August 2022 stated that the roofing work had been completed on 11 October 2021, whereas the evidence suggests that the contractor did not attend on 11 October 2021 and instead carried out roofing work on 14 December 2021.
4. The landlord reiterated in its stage two reply dated 1 November 2022, its stage one reply of 20 January 2023 and its stage two reply dated 27 February 2023 that the roof works had been completed, without mentioning the outstanding roofing work agreed at the joint inspection on 23 September 2021 and listed by the resident in his email of 25 March 2022.
5. The landlord’s stage two reply dated 27 February 2023 said that the replastering of the hallway had been scheduled to be carried out on 14 October 2022 and then on 29 November 2022, but the operatives were unable to gain access on both occasions. However, as mentioned previously, the evidence indicates that the operative was given access on 29 November 2022 but could not carry out the work because a staircase tower was required, and the resident had stated in his stage one complaint of 14 December 2022 that the visit on 14 October 2022 had been unannounced.
As the resident had repeatedly stated in his complaints that there were outstanding works, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not seek to identify from the resident which works he was referring to. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states: “A complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made”. The landlord eventually carried out a joint inspection on 10 March 2023; however, the view of this Service is that such a visit should have taken place much earlier to understand the resident’s concerns. Although the resident had indicated that he preferred contact to be in writing rather than by phone, he had shown a willingness to allow home visits to take place. Furthermore, the resident had mentioned in his complaints on various occasions that the outstanding work was listed in his email dated 25 March 2022. The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaints was poor as it did not use the process as a means of understanding and resolving the resident’s concerns. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to offer financial redress to the resident to reflect the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a roof leak, damp and associated health and safety concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

There were unreasonable delays in the landlord inspecting and repairing the roof and addressing the internal plasterwork. The landlord failed to communicate adequately with the resident, for example, in terms of providing updates. Finally, the landlord did not offer proportionate financial redress to put things right.
There were unreasonable delays in the landlord replying to some of the resident’s complaints and the landlord did not adequately investigate the complaints. The landlord also did not use the complaints process as a way of understanding and resolving the resident’s concerns.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the repairs and complaints handling failures.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,800 in relation to its handling of the roof repairs, damp and internal repairs (this sum includes the £630 already offered by the landlord);
3. Pay the resident £300 in relation to its complaints handling.
4. Provide appropriate training to ensure staff are aware of the importance of thoroughly investigating the issues raised within complaints prior to replying.
5. Provide the resident with a schedule, including timescales, for completing the outstanding repairs, if this has not already been provided.