Nottingham City Council (202212363)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212363

Nottingham City Council

8 June 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to a leak at the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident occupies the property, a two-bedroom house, under a secure tenancy which began on 31 January 2005.
On 17 December 2019, the resident reported a leak in the utility room and the landlord came out to inspect the property and establish the cause of the leak. The landlord noted that a panel under the bathroom window was rotten and needed to be replaced, and that this was the likely cause of the leak. An appointment was arranged for 21 January 2020 for a repair to be made.
On 21 January 2020, a tarpaulin sheet was fixed over the roof and the rotten panel, and further work was recommended for the rotten panels and sills at the property to be replaced.
The landlord did not carry out any further work on the roof or rotten panels and sills until the resident reported another leak in the utility room on 26 October 2020. On that date, the resident also made a formal complaint about the delay in completing the repair.
On 28 October 2020, the landlord attended the property and temporarily sealed the apron and any potential entry points on the flat roof. A further visit to the property was arranged for 2 November 2020.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 2 November 2020, apologising for differing communication provided by its employees, and noting that this had caused a delay to the works at the resident’s property. The landlord confirmed that the necessary works would be carried out when its employees attended the resident’s property on 2 November 2020.
On 2 November 2020, the landlord attended the property and wooden boarding was placed over the hole in the rotten panel, to replace the sheeting.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2021, asking for an update about progress regarding the flood complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this enquiry or made arrangements to carry out the repair to the rotten panels and sills at that stage.
The resident requested that her complaint should be escalated on 20 October 2021, stating that she still had boarding covering the hole in the wall of her property and that she had been waiting for works to be carried out for over a year.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 24 November 2021. In the response, the landlord referred to an unrelated matter, concerning a squirrel infestation which had occurred at the resident’s property due to squirrels gaining access through a hole in her neighbour’s fascias and soffits. The landlord also noted that a request had been sent to the landlord’s Planned Works section to review a request to replace the fascias and soffits for the resident’s property, and that the request would be reviewed at the start of the next financial year. The landlord did not explain any plans it had for replacing the rotten panels and sills at the resident’s property within the stage two complaint response.
Works were completed to replace fascias and soffits at a neighbouring property in January 2022.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 7 September 2022, to confirm that the hole was still boarded over and that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to a leak at the property

The resident contacted the landlord on 17 December 2019, to report that the flat roof above the utility appeared to be leaking. The landlord noted that the panel under the bathroom window was rotten and that this was causing the leak below, rather than the roof, and that the panel therefore needed to be replaced. The landlord’s records show that it recommended a joiner should be booked to attend the property to replace the panel and that this would be a three-hour job.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states that an emergency repair is one which needs to be carried out to avoid serious danger to health and safety, or where a failure to carry out the repair could cause extensive damage to buildings and property. The procedure states that emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours and completed within 3 working days. It also notes that if the job requires new parts or further works, the landlord will make a further appointment to carry out the repairs.
When the repair was first reported, it appears that it was treated as an emergency by the landlord, so an employee attended at the property within 24 hours to assess the problem. This initial attendance by the landlord was therefore an appropriate response to a reported leak, to determine the urgency of the repair.
It is not clear from the records what action, if any, was taken on 17 December 2019, but a follow up appointment was arranged for the 21 January 2020, for a joiner to attend and replace the panel. This suggests that the landlord’s employee had determined that the repair was non urgent, although there is no information within the records to confirm this.
The appointment on 21 January 2021 was within 30 working days of the reported issue, and therefore in line with the landlord’s time limit under the responsive repairs procedure for dealing with a ‘priority’ non-urgent repair.
On 21 January 2020, a repair history record notes that a tarpaulin sheet was fitted to the roof. The resident reports that this ‘black bag’ covered the rotten panel beneath the bathroom window, although this is not clear from the records provided by the landlord. A job sheet completed by the landlord’s employee on that date confirmed that the repair had not been completed and further work was required. The employee noted that the property was a wood panel and framed house and that the panels and sills were rotting, and that pictures had been taken. The employee explained that new panels and sills were required and that they must be painted straight away after repair. The employee also noted that scaffolding would be required to carry out the works.
After this attendance, there is no record that the landlord followed up on the recommended action to replace the rotten panel and sills. There are no further records about the issue until 26 October 2020, when the resident reported another leak. There is no evidence within the records provided to the Ombudsman that the landlord made any arrangements to undertake the recommended works. In addition, there is no record of any communication with the resident about the delay, or suggesting an alternative timescale within which the landlord would carry out the permanent repair.
It is unclear from the evidence what the landlord’s intended actions were with regard to the repair. It is therefore unclear if the delay in carrying out further works was due to covid, lack of follow up of the issue, or identification that the works required were cyclical works. This lack of clarity is unsatisfactory.
On 26 October 2020, 9 months after the temporary sheeting was installed, the resident reported another leak. At that time, the resident also made a complaint to the landlord about the failure to undertake the repair.
It is not clear from the repair records when the landlord attended after this report of a leak. However, in the stage one complaint response, the landlord states that on 26 October 2020, an emergency was raised as there was a leak from the roof which was leaking into the electrics. The landlord goes on to state that the employee who attended the property removed the moss on the outhouse and could not find any damage which would have caused the leak. The landlord further noted that where the black sheeting was, had been extended for scaffold, but the employee could not work out why. According to the landlord, its employee asked the resident to call for a surveyor for more investigation as the employee thought the leak could have been due to damage behind the black sheeting, but the employee did not know what works had been requested.
This lack of awareness of the rotten panel behind the black sheeting, supports the conclusion that there was poor record keeping and communication between the landlord’s employees in relation to the previous leak and recommended repair.
On 28 October 2020, there is a record of a further attendance at the property by the landlord. It is unclear what occurred on that date from the records provided, other than a further appointment being booked for 2 November 2020 for a plumber and a bricklayer to attend. However, in the stage one complaint response, the landlord stated that the operative who attended on 28 October 2020 also temporarily sealed the apron and any potential entry points on the flat roof and cleared the moss which had been piled in the corner of the roof by a previous employee. This information was not contained within the repair records provided to the Ombudsman. In addition, it is unclear from the records whether there were problems with the roof which had caused or contributed to the leaks reported by the resident in December 2019 and October 2020.
On 2 November 2020, there is again no record of what, if any, repairs were undertaken within the records provided to the Ombudsman. However, the resident reports that the ‘black bag’ was removed, and the hole (in the rotten panel) was boarded over in response to the resident’s report of a leak.
The Ombudsman considers that when the resident raised the issue again on 26 October 2020, the landlord should have investigated the failure to complete the recommended repair after its attendance on 21 January 2020.
There is no record of the resident being clearly informed of what the landlord’s approach to the repair would be, and when it expected to remove the boarding and complete the permanent repair to the rotten panels and sills. Instead, the resident was asked to contact a surveyor to find out the position for herself. Given the issue was the subject of a complaint, and that there was a lack of clarity about the required works, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow up the query and arrange for a surveyor to inspect and establish the plan for the works, rather than asking the resident to arrange this.
The resident contacted the landlord about an unrelated issue by email on 15 February 2021, and also asked if there was any progress on her complaint about the flood.
There is evidence of some limited internal email discussion by the landlord’s employees regarding the previous issue with the black bag which had been in place previously, but no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiry, or that it contacted the resident about replacing the panels and sills. This was another missed opportunity by the landlord to clarify matters and inform the resident about what works were required and when the works were likely to be carried out.
There is then no record of contact between the landlord and resident about this issue during the period between 15 February 2021, and her request to escalate her complaint on 20 October 2021.
In her request to escalate her complaint, the resident clearly stated that she still had boarding up on the outside of her property and had been waiting for the work to be carried out for nearly a year.
The resident noted in her request that she had raised this issue as a complaint previously and had called and left messages on several occasions but had received no response.
Despite this clear outline of the issues by the resident, the landlord does not demonstrate within its records that it has clearly communicated with the resident about its intentions for when it expected to remove the boarding and complete permanent works.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s dissatisfaction with the temporary measures, and her understandable desire to be provided with a date for the permanent works. However, it appears that the boarding over of the panel, whilst still a temporary repair, has been effective in preventing flooding, and no further detriment to the structure of the property has occurred since the boarding over has been in place. In this regard, the landlord appears to have fulfilled its responsive repair obligation to take action to prevent flooding, and it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point cyclical works (such as the repair to the outer wall, cladding and putting up of new fascias and soffits) should be carried out.
In her evidence, the resident notes that she was told that permanent resolution to the issues with the panels and sills would also involve fascia and soffit works. The landlord has provided evidence that the resident’s neighbour’s property had some fascia and soffit works in January 2022, and it is unclear why at the same time the landlord did not complete works at the resident’s house for the boarding and the identified rotten components.
The continued lack of clarity in the landlord’s communication with the resident about the repairs over such a long period is not appropriate. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s continued failure to investigate the issue and explain its plans clearly to the resident, amounts to maladministration.
Orders requiring the landlord to apologise for these failings, and to complete a survey before explaining its plans to complete any necessary works at the resident’s property, are set out below.
Considering the failures identified, an award of compensation is also appropriate.
Under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, compensation awards of between £100 – £600 are suggested for cases where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Prolonged effort has been required from the resident to repeatedly chase the landlord to complete the repair. The initial temporary repair using tarpaulin sheeting, which was in place for ten months, caused the resident distress and inconvenience due to the noise it made in the wind, and also because it was ineffective, leading to a further leak. The resident still awaits the permanent repair to the rotten panel and has been waiting for three and a half year for the issue to be permanently resolved, without a clear indication from the landlord of when this is likely to take place.
In consideration of the factors above and the remedies guidance, an order is set out below requiring the landlord to make a payment of £300 to the resident, as compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in the landlord’s response to the leak at the resident’s property.

The handling of the resident’s complaint

In its stage one response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in completing the repair and explained that this had been caused by communication issues between its employees. The landlord apologised for the delay and took steps to arrange for a compensation form to be sent to the resident, which the resident could fill in to make a claim for compensation for financial losses caused by flooding to her utility room. The landlord also informed the resident that the required repairs were due to be completed at an appointment booked for 2 November 2021.
In light of the acknowledged delay in carrying out the repair, in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, the Ombudsman considers that it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether the resident had been caused distress and inconvenience as a result of the inadequacy of the temporary repair, leading to a further leak and damage at the resident’s property. In addition, the landlord could had taken this opportunity to monitor the actions it said it would be taking on 2 November 2021, and subsequently clarified to the resident what its longer-term plans were after the temporary works had been completed.
After the stage one response, the resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2021 to ask whether there was any progress regarding her complaint about the flooding.
There is no record that the landlord responded to this enquiry from the resident about her complaint. This failure to respond to the enquiry about the complaint was in breach of the landlord’s obligations under its complaint policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
When she failed to receive a response to her enquiries, and the panels and sills had still not been replaced, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two on 20 October 2021. The resident clearly set out her concerns that she still had boarding up on the outside of her property covering a hole, and that she had been waiting for the work to be carried out for nearly a year. She noted that she had raised this as a complaint previously but was still waiting for the repair to be completed. She said that she had called and left messages on several occasions but had not received a response.
In its response, the landlord did not directly address the resident’s concerns about the delay in replacing the rotten panel and leaving the temporary boarding in place for over a year. Instead, the landlord noted that a request had been sent to the landlord’s Planned Works section to review a request to replace the fascias and soffits for the resident’s property, and that the request would be reviewed at the start of the next financial year. The resident reports that she had been told verbally that the works to the panel would also involve replacement of fascias and soffits, but the complaint response does not refer to this, or explain the connection between the replacement of fascias and soffits and the rotten panels and sills. The landlord also referred to a recent incident involving squirrels entering the property through a neighbour’s fascias and soffits.
At this stage, the landlord should have investigated the matter, recognised the continued lack of clarity in its approach and apologised to the resident The landlord should have clearly explained its plans to complete the works, and considered offering compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication failures. In failing to do any of these things, the landlord’s stage two complaint response was inadequate.
In light of the failings outlined above, the Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards of between £100 – £600 are suggested for cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right.
In this case, prolonged effort has been required from the resident to obtain resolution to her complaint. There was some acknowledgement of delay and problems with communication in the landlord’s stage one complaint response, but the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for an update on her complaint in February 2021, and the stage two complaint response failed to investigate and clarify the landlord’s plans for the repairs to the resident. No compensation was offered to the resident at any stage for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings, and there was no acknowledgement by the landlord that the issue had been ongoing for two years by the time of the stage two response.
The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate that compensation of £150 is awarded, to reflect the impact upon the resident of these failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The evidence provided to the Ombudsman suggests that the landlord’s repair records failed to adequately capture the cause of the leak, the recommended action, or the resident’s concerns about the delay in completing the repair. The evidence suggests that these record keeping failures contributed both to the delay in addressing the cause of the leak, and also to the failures in complaint handling identified by the Ombudsman.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and adhere to these, as should contractors. Given the above, the landlord’s complaint record keeping was inappropriate.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s inadequate record keeping impacted the resident and hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate that compensation of £200 is awarded to reflect the impact upon the resident of these failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the service failures outlined in this report.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a repairs surveyor and a planned works surveyor to inspect the exterior of the resident’s property, including the boarded up and rotten elements; and
2. Write to the resident and confirm its action plan and timeframe for removing the boarding and completing the external works.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation. The compensation comprises:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the leak at the resident’s property.
2. £150 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s record keeping.

Recommendation

The landlord should review the record keeping issues highlighted in this report with a view to ensuring repair records accurately reflect repair reports and that recommended repairs are captured promptly and actioned accordingly. Identified improvements should be cascaded to relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.