West Northamptonshire Council (202323688)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3 bedroom house with her 3 children. She complained that the landlord failed to complete roof repairs which had caused the ceiling to collapse in her child’s bedroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roof repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. There were delays in repairing the roof and the landlord acknowledged them in its complaint response. It explained how the delays had occurred, apologised and awarded compensation.  However, it did not fully consider the impact on the resident in its offer of compensation and did not fully put things right.
5. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. It did not provide a response until this Service intervened.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. On 3 November 2022, the resident reported that the ceiling in her daughter’s bedroom was bowing and full of water. Water was coming in due to damage to the roof. She told the landlord she was ‘terrified’ the ceiling would collapse. The landlord had no availability to complete a roof repair and passed the job to a contractor.
7. The next day, the landlord recorded the job as an emergency and noted repairs should be carried out as required to the slate/tiled area of the roof to ensure the area was waterproof. The landlord did not have a repairs policy, but its website says it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours to make the property safe. There was no evidence the landlord attended within this timeframe. This was unreasonable and likely added to the resident’s distress.
8. Between November 2022 and October 2023, the landlord raised 11 jobs in relation to the roof repair. However, its records did not show what work was completed for each job. The lack of detail may have contributed to delays in completing repairs and finding a permanent solution to the water ingress. Efficient record keeping and effective systems allow landlords to track the status of repairs, ensuring timely completion.
9. During this time the resident expressed her worry about the safety of the ceiling on multiple occasions. The landlord noted that she was ‘very concerned’ that the ceiling would collapse.  It would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete a risk assessment of the property to ensure it was safe for the household to use the room. There is no evidence that it did this and this likely led to the resident feeling further distress about the safety of her children.
10. While the landlord apologised in its stage 1 response for delays and poor communication, the apology did not adequately put things right. It failed to recognise the distress or inconvenience the resident experienced after chasing repairs for 11 months and raising safety concerns. The landlord’s compensation policy says it could offer financial compensation for a ‘major avoidable delay in completing a repair’. It was unreasonable the landlord did not consider any other remedy at this stage.
11. The roof repairs were completed in November 2023. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for taking a year to finish repairs. It said remedial works would be completed by 14 February 2024 and compensation would be offered once the resident confirmed the costs she incurred due to water damage. This response was reasonable and showed the landlord considered the impact on the resident and took appropriate steps to put things right.
12. On 12 February 2024, while emailing about compensation, the resident told the landlord that she had to sleep on the sofa for 12 months, which had impacted on her medical conditions, while the repairs were outstanding. The landlord’s compensation policy allows compensation when a resident cannot use a room in their home. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered if the room had been unusable, if any compensation was appropriate and confirm its position to the resident. There was no evidence that it did, which likely caused the resident additional distress as her requests went unanswered.
13. The remedial works were completed by 13 February 2024. In April 2024, the landlord awarded compensation of £305 for inconvenience and £595 reimbursement for damaged items. This was positive and showed the landlord followed through on commitments it made at stage 2.
14. However, while the landlord’s offer of £305 compensation showed it considered the inconvenience of the repairs taking over 12 months to complete, it failed to recognise the distress caused and the time and trouble taken by the resident to chase a resolve to the issue during that time.  Its complaints policy says that it can offer compensation for time and trouble, as well for any distress caused. There was no evidence that the landlord considered this as part of its resolution.
15. Overall, while it was unsatisfactory that roof repairs took 12 months to complete, the landlord identified this and made steps to put it right through the complaints process. However, the steps it took were not proportionate to the impact on the resident and it failed to consider its policies when seeking to resolve the issues and put things right.

16. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint after 8 working days. Its complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. This meant there was a 3 day delay in the resident receiving her response. The delay was minimal and unlikely to have had a significant impact on the resident. 
17. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 5 November 2023. She told the landlord she was not satisfied with its response and not happy that it had not set a date to start works. Internal emails from November 2023 show the landlord decided not to escalate to stage 2. Instead of a stage 2 investigation and response it planned to send an update letter. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that when an escalation is denied, this must be clearly communicated to the resident in writing. The landlord did not show it informed the resident it had refused her escalation request or that it explained why.
18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Code says landlords must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through the complaints process. The resident’s request for escalation was fair because the landlord had not confirmed when works would start, which it had said it would prioritise in its stage 1 response. For this reason, the decision not to escalate the complaint was unreasonable and not in line with the Code.
19. As the landlord had not communicated its decision not to escalate the complaint, the resident continued chasing a response. In January 2024, when the landlord still had not replied, she asked this Service for help, causing her unnecessary time and trouble.
20. On 29 January 2024, we asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident.  The landlord responded at stage 2 on 1 February 2024. While it was positive that the landlord eventually responded, it should have done so without this Service intervening. In its response, it apologised for the delay in responding but did not offer a full explanation for how the delay occurred which its complaint policy says it will do. The 3 month delay in responding and lack of a full explanation was unreasonable and likely caused further frustration, which the landlord did not acknowledge.
21. As part of her request to escalate her complaint, the resident said she wanted to be able to access this Service. In most circumstances, residents are only able to ask us to investigate their complaint once they receive a stage 2 response. The landlord’s failure to respond on time delayed the resident’s ability to access this Service if they remained unhappy with the outcome of the landlord’s complaints process.
22. The landlord’s apology for its delay in escalating the complaint was appropriate. However, its refusal to escalate was unreasonable and its complaint response did not address the impact the delay would have had on the resident.

Learning

23. The landlord’s complaint responses were well structured with clear subheadings for findings, redress and learning. The layout showed the landlord considered the Dispute Resolution Principles; to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The presentation of the responses made this clear to residents.
24. The landlord does not have a repair policy and its website only explains that emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours. It offers no timescales for urgent or routine repairs. Having a clear repairs policy with defined timescales provides transparency and accountability. It helps residents to understand when issues will be addressed and reduces uncertainty. The landlord is encouraged to consider implementing a repair policy or updating its website with this in mind.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s repair logs were unclear about what work was completed under each order and simply marked jobs as complete with no further detail.  The landlord is encouraged reflect on how to ensure its records are accurate and detailed. It could review guidance we have published on knowledge and information management and consider any learning.