Home Group Limited (202400122)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400122

Home Group Limited

5 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a roof leak, its handling of associated repairs, and the level of compensation offered by the landlord as redress.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a self-contained flat, on the top floor of a high-rise building. It is understood that the building was less than 10-years old at the time of the complaint.
The building has a flat roof, which is constructed of a single ply membrane, which extends across 2 levels. The property is located directly below the lower roof. There is a bank of solar panels on the lower roof. The higher roof is not directly above the property but adjoins the party wall. At the time of the complaint, the roof was under a warranty.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 5 December 2023, which she escalated to stage 2 on 1 March 2024. During the landlord’s internal complaint process, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with:
1. The timeliness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about water ingress into the property.
2. The landlord’s delay to complete repairs to the roof.
3. The level of communication from the landlord.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling and the amount of compensation offered.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 30 April 2024. The landlord:
1. Said it was sorry for delays and inconvenience caused to the resident, while waiting for works to be completed.
2. Accepted that that its communications with the resident had fallen short and it had not always provided regular updates to the resident, for which it apologised.
3. Accepted that there had been a failure in its service. It apologised for any inconvenience this had caused.
4. Offered £1,000 compensation to put things right. This was broken down as follows:
  1. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £200 for delays completing the repair.
  3. £200 for the lack of communication at stage 1 and the lack of contractor communications.
  4. £150 for delays in logging the stage 2 complaint.
  5. £150 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.
5. Said it would monitor any outstanding actions through to completion and would keep the resident updated. It said that it would review whether any additional compensation was applicable, once satisfied that the outstanding actions had been completed.
6. Said that feedback from the complaint had been shared internally. It committed to monitoring its performance closely, so the resident’s experience was not repeated.
The landlord reviewed its offer of compensation twice between 30 April 2024 and 5 September 2024. In addition to the compensation previously offered, the landlord agreed to pay the resident’s reasonable decorating costs. It also offered a further £680.64, which was broken down as follows:
1. £200 in recognition of further inconvenience and distress.
2. £200 to recognise the additional time it had taken to complete repairs.
3. £200 in recognition of further poor communications.
4. £80.64 which represented the sum already paid by the resident in service charges (responsive repairs element), over the 10-month period that the resident had been affected.
The landlord completed identified repairs to the roof on 29 August 2024. The resident told the Ombudsman on 17 October 2024, that the repairs did not resolve the water ingress, which remained an ongoing issue. The resident said the landlord should fix the roof as quickly as possible.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will consider the landlord’s actions between 19 October 2023 and 30 April 2024. This being the date the resident first reported the roof leak, through to when the landlord issued the final complaint response. However, given the commitments made by the landlord during the complaint process, this report may assess events beyond this timeframe.
The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the substantive matter of complaint, impacted her health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, the investigation may consider the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord was under a statutory and contractual obligation to keep the structure and exterior to the property in repair. This was in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the lease. This included maintaining and repairing the structural parts of the building, such as the roof.
In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord had a “right first-time approach”. It aimed to complete repairs within predefined timescales, from the date that a repair is first reported. The Ombudsman was unable to verify from the available evidence, the landlord’s expected timescale for completing roof repairs and remedying leaks. However, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord was expected to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale of being notified of the disrepair.
The landlord had a discretionary compensation policy, which set out its approach to compensation. The landlord could award between £15 and £75 compensation, where a resident had been caused disruption or where there was an identified service failure. The landlord could award up to a maximum of £100 for significant delays carrying out repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a roof leak, its handling of associated repairs, and the level of compensation offered by the landlord as redress

The resident first reported water ingress from the roof on 19 October 2023. The resident reported that the walls were wet in the communal area and there was a wet patch inside the property. The resident was concerned because the water had come in contact with the wall light in the communal stairwell. The landlord attended the same day to address the leak and check the electrics. The landlord’s response was timely. However, the Ombudsman has been unable to verify the landlord’s findings or what repairs it carried out, if any.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2023. She explained that the stain on her ceiling was growing. The landlord immediately raised an inspection, with a target completion date of 8 November 2023. The Ombudsman suggests that the landlord might have considered giving the job greater priority, given the increasing damage to the property.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 November 2023, reporting that the water ingress had worsened. The resident explained that that the roof was now leaking in multiple places and was damaging the property. She was concerned because there was water near the electrics inside the property. The landlord attended the same day, which was encouraging. But again, the Ombudsman has been unable to verify the landlord’s findings or what repairs it carried out, if any.
The resident told the landlord on 2 November 2023, that there was a now a heavy flow of water coming out of the electric socket in the property. She said that water was dripping quickly through the hallway ceiling. The resident expressed frustration that the landlord had not been able to resolve the roof leak. She told the landlord that she had only recently decorated the property. She said the landlord should compensate her for the damage that had been caused to the walls.
The landlord responded appropriately by raising 2 emergency works orders on the same day, to assess the leaks and the electrics. The landlord’s operatives attended promptly the same day, to make safe the electrics and look at the water ingress. The landlord’s surveyor began making enquiries about what warranties were on the roof. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection on 3 November 2023, to ascertain the cause of the water ingress and consider next steps. This shows that the landlord was treating the issue with the attention it deserved. The landlord’s surveyor recorded that the water ingress was likely caused by a latent defect with the roof. The landlord immediately contacted the builder to arrange a joint inspection, which was appropriate.
The landlord updated the resident on the same day, which was positive. To manage the resident’s expectations, it explained that it might need to go through a tender process, if the builder did not agree to fix the roof. While this may have concerned the resident, the landlord’s approach was not unusual, given the likely cost of the repair.
The landlord actively progressed the matter with the builder over the course of the next week, which was encouraging. The builder said it would arrange for its own roofer to inspect the roof, which was to be expected. The resident emailed the landlord expressing dissatisfaction when the landlord’s surveyor did not update her following its meeting with builder, as had been promised. It was understandable that the resident wanted reassurance that the matter was in hand.
To avoid repetition, from here on in this report, the Ombudsman has not included every occasion that the resident chased the landlord for an update. For reference, the resident was in regular contact with the landlord throughout the case, asking for clarity on various matters and chasing the landlord for updates. While the landlord was responsive to the resident’s contact, there were multiple occasions when the landlord did not provide updates when it had promised. This caused the resident understandable frustration, as well as time and trouble following the matter up with the landlord. The frequency and volume of emails and phone calls from the resident to the landlord suggests there was a breakdown of trust. The Ombudsman makes further comments about the landlord’s approach to communications later in this report.
It was unfortunate that the builder’s roofer was unable to access the roof on 15 November 2023, due to the absence of “man safe equipment” on the roof. This was a type of anchor that is used to keep people safe while working at height. During the attendance, the builder’s roofer noted a fault on the smoke vent, which was preventing the vent from closing. The builder suggested that the open vent was the most likely cause of the water ingress. The landlord responded promptly, by raising a works order for its own contractor to repair the smoke vent. But the landlord could not rule out the possibility of an issue with the roof unless the roof was inspected.
The landlord’s electrical contractor attended on 20 November 2023, to address the issue with the smoke vent. However, the job could not be completed. Its contractor suggested that the landlord pass the job onto a specialist contractor. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on this information. This was inappropriate and left the matter unresolved.
The resident expressed concern to the landlord on 22 November 2023, that the landlord was not proactively progressing any repairs to remedy the water ingress. The resident suggested that the landlord had shown little empathy for her situation and the damage caused to the property. The resident noted that its repairs team had reassured her that the landlord would repair the internal decorations, but its surveyor had suggested that this was her responsibility as a leaseholder.
The landlord responded promptly on the same day. It confirmed that it was waiting for a response from the builder but it had proactively chased the builder for a response. It accepted that the resident needed reassurance as to what was happening and when. It committed to updating the resident by the end of the week, which was encouraging. It suggested that the resident contact its insurer, to get an understanding of how the claims process worked, which was reasonable advice. It is understood that an update was provided to the resident within the agreed timescale, but this was not issued by the member of staff the resident had expected. Understandably, this created some confusion for the resident.
The landlord explained to the resident on 27 November 2023, that it would be escalating matters with the builder, as it had not received a response. The resident expressed frustration that 6 weeks had passed and the landlord still had no plan. The resident said that she still had a hole in the wall, where the landlord had removed the electric socket following the leak. The landlord’s surveyor responded immediately, agreeing to replace the electric socket, which was fair. The landlord’s contractor attended the following day to check that the wall was dry, following which it replaced the electric socket.
The landlord told the resident on 1 December 2023, that the builder had committed to investigating the problem with the roof “when it was safe to do so”. The landlord explained that there was no “man safe system” on the roof, so this would need to be addressed when the weather permitted. This was understandable, given that it had snowed. While it is accepted that the resident was a leaseholder, given the circumstances, the landlord should have considered if there was any support that it could have offered the resident in the meantime. It ought to have considered whether there were any interim steps that it could have taken to protect the resident’s property from further damage. If this was offered, this was not evidenced.
The resident emailed the landlord several times on 4 December 2023, reporting water leaking through the electric sockets again. The resident told the landlord that she was having to collect water in buckets from multiple leaks throughout the property. The landlord acted fairly by raising an emergency repair to disconnect the electric socket, which it completed the same day. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify what the landlord did in response to the resident’s reports about multiple water leaks. This is a concern.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 5 December 2023, after water ingress worsened overnight. The resident said that she wanted the roof fixed as a priority. She asked the landlord to provide her with an action plan, with timings. She said the landlord should compensate for the damage caused to the property, stress, poor service, upset, and inconvenience caused. The landlord attended promptly the same day, to look at the damage caused by the leak. This shows that the landlord was treating the resident’s concerns with the urgency deserved.
The landlord told the resident on 7 December 2023, that it was planning to inspect the roof now it was safe to progress the inspection. The landlord said this was likely to be on either 12 December 2023 or 13 December 2023.
The resident reported more water ingress on 13 December 2023. She told the landlord that she was considering taking legal advice, as there was no urgency from the landlord to find a solution. The landlord emailed the resident the same day, apologising for delays inspecting the roof which had been caused by the poor weather conditions. It clarified that the roof inspection had been rearranged for 15 December 2023. The resident’s frustration at this further delay was understandable, but it would have been inappropriate for the inspection to have proceeded if it was not safe to do so.
The builder’s roofing contractor inspected the roof on 15 December 2023, as planned. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report. But in an email to the landlord’s surveyor on the same day, the resident commented that the roofer told her the water ingress was being caused by the “open fire vent louver”. This is a concern given that this issue had been identified a month before but remained unresolved. The resident asked the landlord’s surveyor to confirm if arrangements were being made to close the vent.
The landlord’s surveyor told the resident on 19 December 2023, that a works order had been raised to address the open fire vent. However, it was also intending to attend itself on 20 December 2023, to see if it could facilitate a temporary fix. This was encouraging, given the previous delay resolving this issue.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the fire vent on 20 December 2023, as planned. It later emailed the resident confirming that it had found a fault. It said it had made arrangements for its engineer to attend later that day, which it did. However, as before, its engineer was unable to complete the job and recommended that the landlord instruct a specialist contractor. The Ombudsman suggests that the landlord ought to have reasonably foreseen this.
The landlord’s surveyor told the resident on 21 December 2023, that it would raise a job for its specialist contractor, to fix the fault on the smoke vent. But it commented that this was unlikely to be the reason for the water ingress. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord needed to close the smoke vent, so it could rule this out as the cause. But it was unhelpful for its surveyor to offer the resident no explanation of what he thought the issue might be, or how, and when the issue might be fixed. This created further frustration and uncertainty for the resident.
The landlord’s complaint team provided the resident with a comprehensive update on 2 January 2024. It confirmed that the roof was under the developers guarantee, however, there was a dispute over liability. Given this, it said it was looking to instruct an alternative contractor to inspect the roof and complete any identified repairs. This was a positive and reasonable course of action. However, the Ombudsman has been unable to verify the landlord’s account from the available evidence.
The landlord’s surveyor emailed the resident on 4 January 2024, confirming that the smoke vent had been fixed. It asked the resident to let it know if the water ingress stopped. The Ombudsman suggests that the landlord could have considered proactively testing the repair, rather placing the onus on the resident to monitor this. This could have been achieved by the landlord carrying out a controlled water test with leak detection dye.
The landlord and resident agreed on 12 January 2024, that it was not possible to verify that the matter had been resolved until there had been more inclement weather. The parties discussed compensation. The landlord said it would find out if it was able to cover the policy excess, if the resident decided to progress an insurance claim. It said it would provide details of its insurer, in case the resident wanted to claim for stress or personal injury. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
The resident asked the landlord on 15 January 2024, to reinstate the electric socket that it had previously disconnected. The landlord attended promptly the next day. The resident told the landlord that there had been no more leaks since the smoke vent had been repaired. This was positive and suggested that the matter was resolved.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 24 January 2024, offering the compensation the parties previously discussed. The landlord showed fairness by also agreeing to cover the resident’s policy excess.
However, 2 weeks later, the resident experienced more water ingress and water pouring out of the electric socket. This suggests that the smoke vent was not the cause, or the only cause of the water ingress, as its surveyor had suspected. The resident asked the landlord to disconnect the electric socket again as a matter of urgency and to explain its proposed next steps. The landlord arranged for its electrician to make the electric socket safe the following day. It also arranged a timely joint meeting with the builder for 12 February 2024, which was encouraging.
The landlord and builder attended on 12 February 2024, who agreed that safety rails and a platform would need to be installed so the roof could be accessed and properly inspected. The landlord raised a works order the following day, to arrange this, which was both timely and appropriate.
The resident and landlord exchanged several emails between 14 February 2024 and 26 February 2024, about scaffolding. The resident expressed concern about how long it was taking for the landlord to arrange this. The landlord reassured the resident that the matter was in hand. It clarified that the matter was not straight forward, due to the significant amount of scaffolding required. The Ombudsman has been unable to assess the landlord’s attempts to secure the scaffolding in a timelier manner, from the available evidence. It is noted that the landlord did not receive the required health and safety documents from its scaffolding contractor until 1 March 2024. The Ombudsman accepts that works could not have started until these documents had been approved.
When the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 1 March 2024, she explained that there had more water ingress into the property. She said that it was a “disgrace” that the landlord was no further forward than it was in October 2023.
The resident told the landlord on 11 March 2024, that there had been more water ingress and the problem was spreading. The resident said the landlord’s services were “appalling”. She reminded the landlord that there had been an issue with water ingress for the last 5 months, the property had been damaged, and she felt that the landlord was ignoring her. The landlord tried to phone the resident to address the resident’s email, however, there was no answer. The resident later explained that she was unable to take calls at work and invited the landlord to respond by email instead.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 March 2024, explaining that there was no more news on the scaffolding. The resident asked the landlord if it could provide her with weekly updates, so she did not have to keep chasing the landlord. The Ombudsman addresses this later in this report.
The landlord’s surveyor told the resident on 13 March 2024, that works orders had been raised to install the scaffolding. It said it was meeting with its scaffold contractor on 14 March 2024, to discuss access requirements, and to agree a start date. The landlord told the resident on 15 March 2024, that the scaffolding would be installed during the week commencing 25 March 2024. It clarified that it had asked the builder to inspect the roof the week commencing 1 April 2024.
The landlord entered into negotiations with the adjacent landlord on 18 March 2024, to cross their land. The landlord’s surveyor told the resident on 27 March 2024, that there would be a delay installing the scaffolding, due to an issue with access over the adjacent land. It committed to informing the resident when it had an installation date. In the Ombudsman’s view, it is unlikely that this delay could have been avoided.
The resident told the landlord on 5 April 2024, that she had been woken to sound of water coming down the cavity wall and through the electric socket. She said this continued through the night, with water coming through the ceiling in multiple areas. She said this was impacting her sleep and was causing her stress. The resident asked the landlord to confirm by the end of the day, when the scaffolding would be erected. The landlord did not respond. The Ombudsman will address this later.
The landlord reached agreement with the adjacent landowner on 8 April 2024, to cross their land. The landlord immediately contacted its scaffolder to agree a date for the installation, which was positive. The landlord’s surveyor told the resident that the scaffolding would be installed the week commencing 15 April 2024. After a further prompt from the resident, the landlord’s surveyor clarified that the roofer would now attend on 19 April 2024.
The scaffolding was installed sometime on or around 16 April 2024. The resident emailed the landlord several times over the next 2 days. The resident expressed concern that water was coming through the ceiling even though it had not been raining. She asked the landlord to attend the following afternoon to inspect this. She also explained that the landlord’s insurer had rejected her claim for damages to her internal decorations. She said this was because of the time it had taken for the landlord to resolve the water ingress.
The builder’s roofing contractor attended on 19 April 2024 and identified several faults on the roof. It is understood that the roofer completed all of the repairs it was able to access. However, was prevented from completing all of the repairs, due to solar panels on the roof. The landlord began arranging quotes and seeking relevant permissions to remove the solar panels promptly. Although this added further delay, this could not be avoided.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 24 April 2024. The landlord confirmed that some works had been completed. It had chased the builder for a copy of the report, which it would share with the resident once this was available. This was positive and shows that the landlord was trying to be transparent.
The landlord gave a further update to the resident on 25 April 2024. The landlord clarified that the remaining repairs would be completed once the solar panels had been removed. It suggested that it needed to wait for some inclement weather to test the repairs and allow it to identify other areas of concern. As previously discussed, there were other ways that the landlord could have tested the effectiveness of the repairs carried out.
The resident emailed the landlord several times on 2 May 2024, asking for it to reconnect the electric socket, which it helpfully did.
The builder emailed the resident on 26 May 2024, with photographs of the roof and explaining the works that it had carried out that week. The resident emailed the landlord the same day, to report further water ingress. She stated that there was water coming out of the electric socket again, which the landlord would need to disconnect. The resident asked the landlord to confirm its next steps concerning the roof.
The landlord’s surveyor told the resident the following day, that it was waiting for a date from its electrical contractor to remove the solar panels. It said it would inspect the rest of the roof following their removal. The resident pointed out that the solar panels were not directly above the property, so any defect found was unlikely to be the cause of the water ingress into the property. The resident suggested that the landlord inspect the parapet wall (believed to be the party wall) and the roof above it, since no one had inspected this area. The resident said the water was pouring down the cavity wall again, and out of the electric socket. The resident questioned why the landlord had not attended to disconnect this.
The resident chased the landlord on 28 May 2024 and 29 May 2024, after not receiving a response from the landlord’s surveyor who was on leave. The landlord’s complaints team phoned the resident on 29 May 2024, confirming that it would contact the builder and would provide the resident with an update. It’s complaint handler committed to emailing the resident every Friday thereafter with an update. The Ombudsman considers this approach was beneficial to both parties.
The landlord’s complaint handler later told the resident that the builder was planning to inspect the roof on 3 June 2024. It explained that it was the resident’s responsibility to disconnect the electric socket, as she was a leaseholder. This was at odds with the landlord’s previous actions.
The resident said the landlord’s position was unacceptable and pointed out that the landlord had disconnected and reconnected the socket on multiple occasions due to recurring water ingress. The landlord’s complaint handler maintained the position that disconnecting the socket was the resident’s responsibility under the lease. While this may have been the case, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord had set a precedent by arranging similar works before.
The landlord’s complaints handler emailed the resident with an update on 31 May 2024, as promised. It repeated that it was not responsible for disconnecting the electric socket. It repeated that the builder would inspect the roof on 3 June 2024 and it would continue to monitor the case through to a successful conclusion. The resident responded on the same day, asking to speak to a manager. She said that the landlord’s customer service was “a joke”, the landlord had shown little understanding, there was a lack of urgency to resolve the leak, and the landlord “could not care less”.
The landlord’s complaint hander told the resident on 4 June 2024, that the builder had postponed the roof inspection until 4 June 2024, at the request of their sub-contractor. It suggested that the resident may wish to submit an insurance claim for disconnecting the electric socket. It said that it had arranged for a senior member of staff to phone the resident that afternoon. It is understood that the resident did not receive a phone call within the timescale it promised. This caused further frustration for the resident and was likely to have further eroded the landlord tenant relationship.
The landlord arranged to meet the resident on 6 June 2024, to inspect the property and roof. The Ombudsman has seen photographs that were taken on the day, which show water stains around the electric socket and on various parts of the ceiling. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted fairly, by changing its position on the electric socket. The landlord promptly arranged to disconnect the socket as a “gesture of goodwill”.
The resident emailed the landlord several times between 12 June 2024 and 14 June 2024, chasing the landlord for an update following its inspection. The landlord said it was intending to inspect the gable end and the roof over the higher elevation, to identify if any further works were necessary. It confirmed that it was in the process of arranging scaffolding to facilitate this.
The landlord raised a works order on 20 June 2024 for the scaffolding, after receiving a quotation. The roof was also inspected on 24 June 2024, by a specialist leak detection contractor, who carried out a dry roof electronic detection survey. This was encouraging. The survey detected 3 areas of concern, which were physically marked out on the roof.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 June 2024, expressing her continued dissatisfaction with the length of time the landlord was taking to resolve the issue of water ingress.
The landlord chased its scaffold contractor for an installation date on 3 July 2024, impressing the urgency of the job. Its scaffolder said that it would be unable to install the scaffolding until the end of July 2024 at the earliest, due to a high volume of work. The Ombudsman suggests that the landlord ought to have satisfied itself prior to instructing works, that its scaffolder was able to deliver its services within a timely manner. The landlord told the resident on 5 July 2024, that it would try to secure an earlier start date if it could.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 July 2024, explaining that:
1. Internal repairs would usually be carried out through a resident’s home contents insurance. But given the time taken to resolve the matter, it was willing to offer the resident a redecoration allowance. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a fair and reasonable solution.
2. It was willing to increase its offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience. It said that its revised offer of compensation would reflect the days she had off work to manage the water damage, and lack of sleep. It said its revised offer would also take into consideration distress, upheaval, and the length of time it had taken to eliminate the water ingress. This was encouraging.
3. Further investigations were being organised for the lower roof, following removal of the solar panels. Scaffolding was also being erected on the higher-level roof, to enable an inspection of the “roof desk”. It confirmed that any identified repairs would be carried out as soon as possible. It clarified that the current timeline for this was July 2024, but it was working with the contractor to bring this forward. It explained that it was unable to use a different contractor, due to contract guarantees. This was understandable.
The scaffolding was installed on 31 July 2024. It was unfortunate that the resident’s internal fire alarm was dislodged from the ceiling during the process, by something heavy falling onto the roof. This created more time and trouble for the resident. The resident was caused additional distress and worry, when the landlord’s contractor did not attend when expected and then arrived without a replacement alarm. The Ombudsman notes that a temporary repair was carried out on 2 August 2024. The job completed out of hours later the same day. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she was extremely worried about being without a working smoke alarm over this period.
The builder informed the landlord on 6 August 2024, that the roof had been inspected. However, the builder said it was not willing to accept liability for the defects which were due to “mechanical damage”. The landlord accepted the builder’s findings and without delay, sought a quote from the roofer and a timescale for the works. This was positive and shows the landlord was committed to resolving the matter.
The landlord told the resident on 9 August 2024, that it would incorporate an allowance for decorating works when it reviewed the compensation entitlement. The landlord said it had raised, agreed, and approved works to the higher roof elevation. The landlord raised another works order the same day, to repair the lower roof. It is noted that another electronic leak detection survey was carried out on 14 August 2024, but this time on the higher-level roof. A commitment was made to address any repairs identified, at the same time as the repairs were carried on the lower roof. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for all works to be completed at the same time.
The landlord’s complaints team emailed the resident on 23 August 2024, confirming that repairs would be completed by 4 September 2024. It also set out the detail of its revised compensation offer. The resident said she was unhappy with decoration vouchers, as she thought the landlord would redecorate for her. The landlord showed fairness by considering the resident’s representations. This led to the landlord changing its position and offering to cover the resident’s reasonable decoration costs. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was a satisfactory compromise. It is noted that the resident later told the landlord that the amount of compensation offered was inadequate.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 September 2024. The landlord said the roof had been fully repaired on 29 August 2024. It said it would leave the scaffolding in place until there had been some adverse weather. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have proactively tested the effectiveness of the repairs. However, it was positive that the scaffold was left up, so it could react quickly to any further reports of water ingress.
The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord did itself recognise that the resident had been “distressed by the whole experience” and expressed its “sincere apologises” for the poor service received. The landlord appropriately considered whether any additional compensation was due to the resident, after the roofing repairs had been completed. This was in line with the landlord’s commitments at stage 2. The landlord’s revised offer of compensation brought the total amount of compensation awarded to £1,680.64, plus the resident’s reasonable decorating costs. This compensation was calculated in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and was at the higher end of compensation that the Ombudsman would have awarded for distress and inconvenience, based on the available evidence.
However, it was troubling that repairs carried out did not stop the water ingress.

Overall

It was 45 weeks from the resident’s first report about water ingress, before the roof repairs were completed. However, at the time of this report, the resident continues to experience significant distress and inconvenience from reoccurring episodes of water ingress. The resident has described how this has caused constant worry, frustration, uncertainty, lack of sleep, as well as time and trouble progressing the matter to a conclusion. It is evident from the resident’s communications with the landlord and her subsequent conversations with the Ombudsman, that she believes that the landlord has not progressed the matter with sufficient urgency.
The Ombudsman accepts that tracing leaks can be a complicated process. It is not unusual for several attempts to be made before a resolution is found. It is also accepted that the repairs carried out to date, were made more complex by the height of the building, difficulties in accessing the roof, by adverse weather conditions, by having to negotiate with the adjacent landowner to cross their land, and because of the warranties that were in place. These were all issues that the landlord had to navigate, which would have taken time.
But despite the significant time and resources invested by the landlord into resolving the matter, the Ombudsman considers the landlord missed opportunities to bring the matter to an earlier resolution. For example, it could have checked that its scaffolding contractor had the capacity to install the scaffolding in a timely manner, prior to instructing works. It might have identified that the smoke vent was not the cause of the water ingress sooner, if it had arranged for its specialist contractor to attend when this was first recommended.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord’s focus may have been on repairing the roof. But it was important that the landlord did not lose sight of the impact that the recurring water ingress was having on the resident. The resident’s comments that the landlord “lacked empathy” and could “not careless”, were troubling. The Ombudsman remains concerned by the lack of practical support offered to the residentwhile it was investigating the source of the leak. The landlord ought to have considered if there were steps that it could have taken to protect the property from further damage, pending repairs.
In addition to the earlier comments made in this report about communications, the Ombudsman makes several additional observations.
During the course of the complaint, the resident was in communication with several members of the landlord’s staff, from different teams. She was also communicating with representatives of the builder, their contractors, and the landlord’s own contractors. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was likely to have been overwhelming for the resident. As previously evidenced, this led on occasion to the resident being given conflicting information, causing unnecessary confusion and upset.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion this may have been avoided by channelling all communications through a single point of contact. TheOmbudsman notes that the resident was told on several occasions, by different members of staff, that they were the resident’s main point of contact. However, not allcommunications were being routinely channelled through these individuals.It is possible that not all of the landlord’s staff were aware that a single point of contact had been appointed.
The Ombudsman also noted that the resident often requested same day responses from the landlord or asked the landlord to issue responses within short timescales. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify if the landlord had a service level agreement, which set out its expected response timescales for resident communications. It was understandable that the landlord was not always able to meet the resident’s expectations, particularly when its staff were on leave or were out of the office.
It is accepted that the landlord’s complaint handler agreed to provide the resident with weekly updates from July 2024. But the landlord could have made matters simpler for both parties, had it had agreed a communications plan with the resident at an earlier stage. The evidence shows that the resident suggested this in March 2024,but the landlord missed the opportunity to put this in place.
The Ombudsman also suggests that it might have been helpful to both parties, had the landlord provided the resident with a clear action plansetting out the steps that it would taketo fully repair the roof, and by when. Thereafter, it could have regularly reviewed its progress against the action plan, with the resident, which would have promoted transparency and given reassurance.
However, the landlord has shown fairness by accepting there had been inadequacies in the service it provided and by considering the resident’s representations about its offer of redress. It tried to put things right by apologising, endeavouring to fix the roof, and by making a reasonable offer of compensation. It showed that it was willing to learn from complaint outcomes, by sharing feedback internally, to improve future service delivery. But ultimately, the substantive issue has not been put fully right.
Therefore, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a roof leak, its handling of associated repairs, and the level of compensation offered by the landlord as redress.
To resolve the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay the £1,680 compensation it previously offered. The landlord should reflect upon its handling of any new reports about water ingress from the date it repaired the roof. Where failings are identified, the landlord should consider making a further offer of compensation to the resident. The Ombudsman makes several other orders, which are set out at paragraph 95.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy. In accordance with this policy, the landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days. The landlord aimed to provide a full response to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
It is not in dispute that the landlord issued the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses outside of the landlord expected timescales under its complaints policy. The landlord has already apologised for this and has offered compensation for the inconvenience caused. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its complaints policy and Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Therefore, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a roof leak, its handling of associated repairs, and the level of compensation offered by the landlord as redress.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must pay compensation of £1,680, that it previously offered (if this has not already been paid), directly to the resident.This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and with the landlord’s own compensation policy in mind.
The landlord must:
1. Appoint a single point of contact for the resident and make all parties aware of this. All communications between the parties should be channelled through the agreed single point of contact until such time as the substantive issue is fully resolved. The landlord must confirm these arrangements in writing to the resident.
2. Consider if there are any interim measures that the landlord might take to protect the property from further water ingress. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter. The landlord must confirm its intentions in writing to the resident.
3. Endeavour to agree a communications plan with the resident, which should detail the frequency and method of contact between the parties. The landlord must confirm these arrangements in writing to the resident. The communications plan may be amended by agreement of the parties at any time but should continue until the substantive issue is resolved.
4. Set out the steps that the landlord will take to resolve the substantive issue in a comprehensive action plan, which must include timescales. A copy of this action plan must be provided to the resident in writing. Thereafter, theaction plan must be monitored by the landlord and reviewed in conjunction with the resident at agreed intervals.
5. Confirm to the resident in writing, that it will honour its previous commitment to pay the resident’s reasonable costs of redecorating the property once both parties are satisfied that the roof is fully repaired.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should commit to considering any further award of compensation once the substantive issue of complaint is resolved.
The landlord should reflect on the issues identified in this case and consider any learnings.