London Borough of Havering Council (202320506)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320506

Havering Council

27 June 2025

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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. Repairs to the guttering, including the time taken to remove scaffolding put up and the communication around this.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor maisonette.
The lease plan shows the resident owns her own garden.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord raised a routine repair to replace guttering. The repair job notes that scaffolding would need to be erected.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 May 2023. She said:
1. Scaffolding had been installed for 3 weeks for a guttering repair that she had not been notified of.
2. Her child could not play safely in the garden.
3. There was a lack of communication and “broken promises” from the contractor. She felt the contractor had lied to her.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. It
1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. Said delays were caused by works being approved. It apologised for the inconvenience.
3. Referenced a telephone call with the resident on 8 June and confirmed dates for further works due to be completed which were:
  1. Asbestos removal and guttering to be replaced on 13 June 2023.
  2. Scaffold to be struck on 19 June 2023.
On 19 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. A party for her daughter had to be cancelled and she lost £100 deposit for a bouncy castle. The resident requested compensation for this.
2. The asbestos contractor could not carry out works during their repair visit due to not having a ladder. The scaffolding contractor had to return to fit a fixed ladder to the scaffolding. The guttering was then removed on 15 June.
3. The resident chased the contractor on 16 June 2023. The contractor did attend that day and fit new guttering but could not connect it to the new downpipe.
4. Screws had dropped down into her garden and her daughter goes in her garden barefoot.
5. The new guttering was leaking. The resident was told she would receive a call back but had not heard despite chasing.
The resident contacted us on 13 September 2023 as the landlord had not issued its stage 2 response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 November 2023. It said:
1. It partially upheld the complaint. This was due to the landlord not responding to the resident’s concerns about the inconvenience caused and broken promises in its stage 1 response.
2. It was necessary to erect scaffolding to complete repairs to the guttering and rain water pipe.
3. Scaffolding was scheduled for removal on 19 June 2023 and was removed on 28 June 2023.
4. It confirmed that all repairs were complete.
5. The contractor discussed her daughter’s party with the resident, but the resident offered different dates. It said it was “impossible to agree a definitive plan”.
6. It was unable to offer compensation. It acknowledged the scaffolding was not removed on the date given to the resident but it completed the removal as soon as it was practical.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the guttering, including the time taken to remove scaffolding put up and the communication around this

The landlord’s repair policy states “We always aim to offer suitable appointments at the first point of call to complete the repair, we will:
1. Provide a range of appointments at times to suit residents.
2. Confirm all appointments by SMS where possible
3. Ensure that residents are kept informed of the programme of works.
4. Advise if an appointment is not required, or if somebody needs to be at home when we call.”
In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord will complete routine repairs within 28 working days of the request.
The landlord’s housing services goodwill gesture policy states: “Goodwill and discretionary payments may be applicable in circumstances which could include:
1. Evidence of poor complaint handling, (only after following relevant escalation in complaints policy and procedures).
2. Unreasonable delays in providing a direct service e.g. in undertaking a repair.
3. failure to follow policy and procedure”.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord raised a repair following a report that the gutter was broken and filled with moss. This was reported to the landlord by another resident and logged as a routine repair. The repair records show it was identified that scaffolding would be required.
On 22 May 2023, the landlord attended and identified that an asbestos test was required. An order was raised on 31 May 2023 for the asbestos contractor to attend.
It is unclear from the evidence as to the date scaffolding was put up. In the resident’s original complaint to the landlord on 30 May 2023 she said the scaffolding had been up 3 weeks. The resident has informed us and the landlord that she received no notification that scaffolding would be put up in her garden.
The landlord’s position is that the contractor does not give notification for “block orders” and that the scaffolding would not have affected the resident’s ability to access her property. However, the landlord had engaged the contractor to meet its repair obligations, and the landlord should have ensured as part of its contract monitoring arrangements that the contractor was giving appropriate notice of works and access needed. It was not fair to simply say that the contractor did not need to give notification. This failed to recognise that the garden was for the resident’s sole use and was not a communal area. There was also a lack of consideration that the use of the resident’s garden would be limited. As the contractor had to access the resident’s garden to erect the scaffolding, the landlord should have ensured that the resident was notified and arranged access.
The resident has advised us that scaffolding being put up resulted in her cancelling her child’s birthday party and she lost a deposit for a bouncy castle. She said she spoke to the contractor multiple times and was told the scaffolding “wouldn’t be up for long” and was assured it would be down in time for the party. We are aware that the resident and landlord dispute the dates of the party. The evidence does not show any of the conversations where this was discussed. As there is a lack of evidence and a dispute as to what has occurred, the Ombudsman cannot say with reasonable confidence that the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s concerns about her plans. However, if the landlord had notified the resident in advance that it needed access to her garden to put scaffolding up, the resident would have had an opportunity to raise any queries or concerns in advance and make plans around her child’s birthday. If the landlord had then kept the resident updated on progress of works, it could have avoided the inconvenience to the resident as she would have had the opportunity to consider alternative plans.
The landlord’s repair records are not clear. It shows that the contractor removed the asbestos guttering on either 19 or 29 June 2023. The rainwater pipe was completed 20 June 2023. The repair records do not show when the scaffolding was removed. In an email from the contractor to the landlord, it said the asbestos contractor completed works on 15 June 2023, new guttering was installed 16 June 2023 and the scaffold was struck on 19 June 2023.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said there had been a delay to approving works. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the lack of notification of the scaffolding and the resident’s feelings of the contractor breaking promises. Not acknowledging or address these understandable concerns would have made the resident feel that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
We have seen evidence that the resident had to chase the landlord and contractor on multiple occasions regarding updates on the repairs. The resident told the landlord she made 28 calls to chase up repair works. In an email on 19 June 2023 to the landlord, she said the repair dates given in the stage 1 response had not been met. She also said she had to chase the contractor as there had been a confusion with the asbestos contractor regarding a ladder being left on the scaffolding. This chasing and lack of communication will have caused the resident inconvenience.
On 21 June 2023 the contractor told the landlord that for health and safety reasons, the ladder had to be tied down and was not seen by the asbestos contractor. It said it had spoken to the resident on “many occasions providing updates.” We have not seen evidence to confirm this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with updates, considering it had not fulfilled the repair dates given to the resident in the landlord’s stage 1 response.
On 30 June 2023 the resident told the landlord the scaffolding was removed on 28 June 2023 and she had chased the scaffolding contractor directly.
Following the replacement guttering, the resident reported a number of further repair issues to the landlord between June 2023 and August 2023. She said:
1. Screws had dropped down into her garden and contractors had not disposed of them. Her daughter uses the garden barefoot.
2. The new guttering was leaking.
3. Nobody had been back to finish the replacement downpipe.
4. An aerial wire was hanging down since the replacement of the guttering.
5. A temporary fix was completed to the guttering but nobody had returned for a permanent solution.
In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord took the following actions:
1. The contractor agreed to dispose of any debris when attending the site.
2. It raised a repair for the contractor to attend the leaking guttering. It logged the repair on 21 July 2023 and completed the repair on 29 July 2023. As this was reported by the resident on 19 June 2023, there was an unreasonable delay in logging the repair.
3. Following the resident’s report on 30 June 2023, an order was raised on 13 July 2023 to finish the replacement of the downpipe. Again, there appears to be an unreasonable delay in logging the repair. It was then identified that the downpipe contained asbestos. On 4 August 2023 the landlord referred the job to an asbestos contractor. The downpipe was renewed on 29 August 2023.
4. On 3 July 2023, the landlord told the resident it would raise a repair for the aerial wire. This was not logged until 22 July 2023. The landlord’s repair records do not show that it was aware when the contractor completed the works. The repair record was updated following confirmation from the resident it was completed. This reflects poor communication between the landlord and its contractors.
We cannot see that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns that a further repair to the gutter was needed. A follow up repair is not on the landlord’s repair log. The resident advised she believes this is still outstanding. We have therefore made a recommendation to the landlord to confirm to the resident if further works are required.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said the contractor advised that residents were informed of the works to be carried out but would not have necessarily been advised when scaffolding would be erected. We have not received evidence of this notification and the resident disputes being advised of any works.
The landlord acknowledged that the removal of the scaffolding was delayed in its stage 2 response however it failed to put things right by apologising or providing an explanation for the delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide an apology as it had not met the timescales given to the resident. The landlord said it would not provide compensation for the resident’s loss incurred by cancelling the party or telephone calls made regarding the repairs as the scaffolding was removed as soon as practically possible. The landlord failed to recognise that the delays and lack of communication caused inconvenience to the resident.
We consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the guttering, including the time taken to remove scaffolding put up and the notification of this. This is because:
1. The landlord did not act fairly by erecting scaffolding in the resident’s garden without prior notification. This was her garden for her own use rather than a communal area. The landlord then failed to evidence that it worked with the resident when she told them the inconvenience it caused.
2. The repairs were delayed, including the logging of repairs requests. The landlord failed to provide an appropriate apology for not meeting the expectations it set out to the resident.
3. The landlord has not been able to evidence it acted in line with its policy and kept the resident informed. It did not recognise the time and trouble the resident experienced contacting it for updates. Its overall communication was poor in this case.
In the absence of the landlord’s housing services goodwill gesture policy providing details of its compensation calculations, our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. It is ordered for the landlord to pay £200 compensation for the landlord’s failings in handling of repairs to the guttering, including the time taken to remove scaffolding put up for the repair and the communication around this.
The resident raised concerns that, as the scaffolding was up longer than needed, this may affect her service charge. She requested confirmation if she had to pay daily scaffolding charges and asked for this to be added to her complaint. The landlord did not comment on this. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to provide a response to the resident’s enquiry.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord is required to adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) which specifies that stage 1 complaints should be dealt with within 10 working days, unless additional time is agreed. Stage 2 complaints should be dealt with within 20 working days, unless additional time is agreed with the resident.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 30 May 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an acknowledgment. This is not in line with the code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 15 June 2023, 12 days after the resident’s initial complaint. This is slightly over the 10 working days required by the code.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it apologised to the resident for the delay and thanked her for her patience. It was positive for the landlord to recognise its delay and offer an apology.
On 19 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord sent an acknowledgement the next day. In the landlord’s response, it told the resident that it aims to respond within 25 working days. The landlord also said it was experiencing higher than expected workloads and the resident’s complaint may not be dealt with within published timescales.
The resident requested an update on her complaint on 21 July 2023. The landlord responded on the same day advising an investigator had not yet been assigned. It apologised for the delay and said “the chief executive will write to you with the outcome at the earliest opportunity.” The landlord did not agree an extension with the resident nor did it give a timeframe on when it hoped to assign the case, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. This led to the resident requesting a further update on 21 August 2023. Again the landlord failed to provide the resident with a timeframe on when it hoped to provide a response.
On 13 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident stating her complaint had not been assigned to an investigator. The landlord explained it was implementing a restructure of the complaint’s team and this has caused the delay. Whilst it is positive the landlord updated the resident, it continued to leave the resident feeling unsure of when her complaint would be responded to. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord, which failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations. The resident therefore requested help from the Ombudsman and had to incur time and trouble in doing so.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 November 2023, 101 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This was unreasonable, and well outside of the timescales set out in the Code. The landlord did not recognise or apologise to the resident. The landlord also did not offer any redress for its poor complaint handling. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and take steps to put things right.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident had to chase the landlord for updates and was not given a clear indication of when she would receive a response. This would have resulted in a loss of confidence that her complaint was being taken seriously. The landlord’s stage 2 response was unreasonably delayed. The landlord missed opportunities to put things right in its complaint response and to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering, including the time taken to remove scaffolding put up and the communication around this.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total compensation of £300, broken down as follows:
  1. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handing of repairs to the guttering, including the time taken to remove scaffolding put up for the repair and the communication around this.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
  3. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any possible arears.
Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified.
Within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord should carry out a review of this complaint to identify any lessons to be learnt from its handling of the guttering repair and subsequent complaint. The review should consider how residents are given notification of repairs when the use of their property is affected, including their garden. The landlord should share the findings from this case review with the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

Contact the resident to confirm details of her query relating to the cost of repairs affecting her service charge. The landlord should then provide the resident with a written response.
Confirm to the resident if further repairs to the guttering are required.