Octavia Housing (202339687)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339687

Octavia Housing

26 February 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over:
1. The condition of his windows.
2. Recurrent leaks and linked repairs.
3. The presence of asbestos.
4. The handling of his complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He lives in a 1-bedroom, second floor flat.
In late October 2023, the resident made a request for the landlord to inspect his flat. He said he had concerns that, because of its age, it might not meet current fire-safety standards. It is acknowledged that the landlord did not reply to the resident’s request at the time.
The resident contacted this Service with concerns about the condition of his windows. We asked the landlord to investigate the matter on 26 February 2024. In particular, the resident’s concerns that the flat was very cold in the winter. We informed the landlord that the resident wished for it to renew his windows and improve the insulation.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 18 March 2024. It said:
1. A surveyor had been instructed to inspect the windows.
2. A heat engineer had been appointed to check the effectiveness of the heating system and to advise the resident of the findings from this.
3. It was sorry for the delay in responding to his query and offered £50 compensation for the time and trouble he was caused.
On 13 May 2024, the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and complained that other issues had since arisen. He said:
1. He was unhappy that he had been told the windows were not due to be replaced, despite the surveyor acknowledging they had deteriorated.
2. A heating engineer had not been in contact.
3. There had been a leak from a flat above the week before and he was unhappy with the delays to fix the damaged caused. He reported this was one of several leaks in the last year, 2 of which were thought to be caused by blocked guttering.
4. He was concerned about fire-safety in the building because of its age, condition, and because other tenants left items in the communal areas.
5. He was worried that his bedroom ceiling, which had been damaged by one of the leaks, contained asbestos. He asked the landlord to perform an asbestos test.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 12 August 2024, which addressed both the original and new issues. It said that:
1. While the windows were not on its planned programme of works, it was responsible for repairs. It would inspect these the following day and asked the resident to confirm if this was convenient.
2. It was sorry that the resident had experienced leaks. The landlord advised the most recent leak had been fixed and it had booked an appointment to repair his ceiling. It offered £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. His concerns about fire-safety had been passed to the compliance team who would be in touch within a week.
4. An appointment had been booked to test the ceiling for asbestos.
5. It was sorry that the assessment of his heating system had not taken place. The landlord asked the resident to contact the heating contractor directly to schedule an appointment. It awarded £50 compensation for the inconvenience.
6. Regular inspections of the communal areas were done to ensure escape routes were kept clear. A further ad hoc inspection would be made.
7. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £250 compensation.
After the complaint process ended, the landlord carried out an inspection of the flat in August 2024. However, it advised us that no records of the findings from this were available. So, the landlord completed a further inspection at the end of 2024, the results of which were shared. This identified a number of repairs and improvements, including:
1. Repairs to several windows to improve the functionality and look.
2. Installation of new radiators.
3. Adding a leaf guard and wire balloons to guttering to prevent it blocking.

It also said that an asbestos test was requested again because it was unable to find a record of an earlier result.

The resident continued to raise concerns with the landlord connected to his complaints, including reporting another leak in September 2024. He asked it to reduce his rent for 3 months while repairs were fixed. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these concerns.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his concerns about his windows, recurrent leaks, and asbestos testing. He said these issues had caused him to worry for his safety. The resident wants the repairs to be completed and compensation above the amount the landlord has offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complained on 25 November 2024 about the time it was taking to complete repairs to his bedroom and kitchen ceiling to resolve damage caused by a leak he reported 2 months earlier. The landlord sent a stage 1 response in January 2025. While connected, the more recent events were not part of the original complaint referred to the Ombudsman. It was correct then for the resident to allow the landlord the opportunity to investigate the new issues. In the interest of fairness, this investigation focuses on the events the resident complained about from October 2023 until August 2024. Where we go beyond this timeframe is to consider if the landlord completed actions it agreed to resolve the complaint. The resident can escalate his new complaint to stage 2 if he is unhappy with the landlord’s response. He can then refer it to the Ombudsman if necessary.
The resident told us that the landlord’s investigations into a recurrent leak affecting his bedroom and kitchen ceiling were insufficient and he believes it has not diagnosed the root cause. We are not able to comment on the technical appropriateness of the landlord’s findings. The focus of this investigation is to determine whether the landlord has acted in line with its obligations under the occupancy agreement and otherwise. This will involve assessing the reasonableness of the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of leaks, based on the relevant policies, guidance, and good practice available.

Windows

The resident remains dissatisfied that the landlord has not addressed the issues he reported with his windows allowing heat to escape.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the resident’s property. In his initial contact from late October 2023, the resident did not report a specific problem other than the windows were aging. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider inspecting the windows to establish their condition. At the very least, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s enquiry. Its lack of action was not consistent with the landlord’s approach to customer care, as published on its website, to be “reliable, responsive and respectful” to its tenants.
It was via our Service, in February 2024, that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s reports that his windows were allowing heat to escape. This was a specific problem that the landlord would be expected to investigate. The landlord is also required, under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, to ensure its properties are not excessively cold. It was appropriate that the landlord agreed in its March 2024 stage 1 response to inspect the windows and consider improving the heating system.
An inspection of the windows took place in April 2024, although no report or documented findings have been provided. The landlord then informed the resident on 13 May 2024 that his windows were not on its programme of works to be replaced. The landlord’s website explains that ‘planned works’, such as replacing windows, are carried out as a programme. Although the resident’s disappointment is understandable, the landlord’s response was in-line with its approach to carrying out large scale works.
The stage 2 response from August 2024 advised that, despite not being due for renewal, the landlord would inspect the windows for repairs. This was appropriate because it has an obligation to keep the windows in good repair. However, the landlord had already inspected the windows and, in the circumstances, it could reasonably at the time have considered if there were repairs it could make. Not doing so was a missed opportunity.
The landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging that it had failed to complete the heat loss survey. Its apology and £50 compensation for the inconvenience were also reasonable to recognise the impact on the resident. It was within the range the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends is paid for minor service failings that have caused a degree of distress and inconvenience to a resident.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) expects that any remedies offered are “followed through to completion.” At the time of writing this report, the landlord had not carried out repairs to the windows that a surveyor had identified at an inspection on 2 December 2024. This inspection was also needed because the previous one had not been recorded. The landlord has not, based on our current knowledge, installed the radiators that it determined would improve the heating. It has not, therefore, remedied the complaint. The landlord is ordered to provide a status update on all of the repairs associated with the windows and potential heating loss.
The evidence shows the landlord took some appropriate actions to address the complaint. However, its lack of timely action and poor record-keeping delayed works that may have improved the heating in the resident’s flat. Given the additional failings, we do not consider the landlord’s compensation is enough. We have therefore ordered it to pay £200, which replaces the landlord’s original award. If the landlord has already paid the resident, it should deduct that amount from the award.

Leaks

The resident complained to us about the time it was taking the landlord to resolve a reoccurring leak affecting his bedroom and kitchen. He reported that this was likely from a blocked gutter. He was also unhappy about the time it took to complete repairs to his bedroom ceiling.
The available records show that between June 2023 and July 2024 the landlord’s contractors attended to 3 leaks. The repair instructions indicate these were thought to be from the flat above. They also attended in May 2024 to inspect for and fill gaps around the bedroom and kitchen windows where water was entering. The landlord advised in response to our information request that its contractors cleared guttering on 6 August 2024, but we have not been provided any records that were made at the time. Nevertheless, the available evidence suggests the resident’s property was affected by at least 2 different issues.
In its stage 2 response in August 2024, the landlord said it had fixed the most recent leak which it said was coming from a valve in the flat above. Although we are unable to confirm this, it is clear the landlord was satisfied that the cause of the leak had been identified. Even so, the response was insufficient because it did not address the resident’s concern that there had been recurring problems. This was not in-line with the Code which requires all complaint responses to “address all points raised in the complaint”.
The evidence shows that the landlord attended to repair or inspect all issues to do with the leaks, initially, within the appropriate timescales set in the repair policy. This was 24 hours for issues that may pose an “immediate danger” to people and the property, and 15 working days where no immediate danger is apparent. However, the records that we have seen do not show the contractor’s exact findings or opinions on the causes of all the leaks and water ingress. This lack of detail is inappropriate because the landlord should be able to evidence the findings of its investigations.
While this is true, nothing in the available evidence suggests the leaks the resident experienced were because of a specific failing on the landlord’s part. Although incomplete, there is enough in the records seen to show the landlord investigated the causes of the leaks and took action to resolve these where a problem was known. A recommendation has though been made for the landlord to consider reviewing its record-keeping practices.
The landlord did not acknowledge any specific failings in its final response. However, it acknowledged that the resident had been caused distress and inconvenience and awarded compensation. The lack of explanation was not in-line with the standards of its complaint policy and the Code. Both require it to “provide clear reasons for any decisions”. It has also made it difficult for us to assess the reasonableness of the compensation offered.
Available records show that there were delays in the landlord completing the damage that was caused by the leaks and water ingress. This includes taking action to address a mould problem around the kitchen window, which the resident reported on 31 May 2024. This was not treated at the time of the stage 2 response. There was also a delay in reinstating the resident’s bedroom ceiling after a leak he reported on 22 July 2024. It was required to complete these works within 15-working days. However, it took until 16 August 2024 to apply mould treatment and until 5 September 2024 to replaster the ceiling. It therefore failed to take timely action to complete repairs that may have improved the living conditions for the resident.
The level of compensation the landlord awarded of £250 was the maximum its policy states it may pay for failings that cause distress and inconvenience. This reflected the impact of the delays, which would have been more distressing because of the leaks. The amount, at that time, was a reasonable award. It is within the range our guidance recommends is paid for distress that is not expected to be lasting. While the resident has asked the landlord to reimburse some of its rent, the landlord’s compensation policy states it will only consider this where a room is “out of use”. There is no evidence that any of the rooms affected by the leaks were significantly damaged or deemed unusable.
After the complaints process ended, the resident reported that there was mould in his kitchen. This was, according to records, treated within its routine timescale. He also reported another leak affecting his kitchen and lounge ceilings in September 2024. Although unconfirmed, it seems likely, based on the resident’s account and the landlord’s most recent survey, that this was due to a blocked gutter. The landlord told us that it has identified some modifications that it can make to the guttering that may reduce the likelihood of it becoming blocked again.
While the landlord has shown an ongoing commitment to investigating the issues effecting the resident’s flat, it also possibly missed an opportunity at its August 2024 inspection to consider making the modifications. We cannot say that the leak the resident experienced after this could or would have been prevented.
As a result, we have made a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay £300 compensation, in place of the original offer. It should also provide a timeline for when the works to the guttering will take place.

Asbestos

The resident was concerned that there may be asbestos in his bedroom ceiling. On 23 July 2024 he reported that when his ceiling was cut to access the leak above it was filled with a material that he believed may contain asbestos. The resident asked for this to be tested.
Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, the landlord has a duty to manage asbestos in its properties. The landlord’s policy states that it will provide information and advice to its residents where asbestos is known to be their homes. It will also “[i]mplement a prompt and appropriate response” when asbestos may have been disturbed.
There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the resident’s property is known to contain asbestos. It is unclear whether the landlord decided to test for asbestos because there was the potential for it to be in the ceiling or to resolve the complaint. Nevertheless, it should have, under the terms of its policy, acted promptly after it agreed to complete a test. It should also have given the resident advice about how to reduce or avoid exposure or at least, reassurance about the likelihood of it being present. We have seen no records that show the landlord gave the resident advice. Both parties have also said that the asbestos results are unknown.
While there is no indication that the resident’s property is known to contain asbestos materials, the landlord’s lack of communication and prompt action has caused the resident worry. We have, therefore, made a finding of service failure and order the landlord to confirm the results and pay compensation of £100.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy, which aligns with the standards set in the Code. It aims to acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5-working days. It then commits to respond at stage 1 within 10-working days and 20-working days at stage 2. The policy states that, where additional issues are raised, and a stage 1 response has been sent it “will log the complaint(s) as a new complaint.”
It is clear the landlord exceeded its timescales with its August 2024 stage 2 response by around 45–working days. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord agreed an extension with the resident. We have also seen no evidence it was keeping him updated. It also failed to log the resident’s additional issues raised in his escalation email in May 2024 as a separate complaint. Not dealing with the new issues separately meant the resident was not given the opportunity to have his complaint reviewed, which is the purpose of the 2-stage process. Therefore, there was significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
The resident advised us that the landlord did not respond to 2 letters he sent in August and September 2024. These were sent by him in response to the landlord’s stage 2 decision. The stage 2 response confirmed it was its final response and the end of the complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy also states it may not respond where it has addressed a matter and advised that “the complaint process has been exhausted.” Therefore, there was no obligation for the landlord to respond again. Even so, it would have been reasonable for it to respond if only to reiterate that the complaints process had ended. Not doing this was not in-line with its customer care ethos to be “responsive and respectful”.
Appropriately, the landlord has taken some steps to put things right. However, this investigation has identified further failings. A finding of service failure has been made and the landlord is ordered to take learning and pay the resident compensation of £300, which is in place of its original award.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over:
1. The condition of his windows.
2. Recurrent leaks and associated repairs.
3. The presence of asbestos.
4. Handling of his complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence showing it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to apologise to the resident for the delays and communication failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £900, deducting any previous compensation already paid. This is made up of:
  1. £200 for the condition of the windows.
  2. £300 for the recurrent leaks and linked repairs.
  3. £100 for the asbestos testing.
  4. £300 for the handling of the complaint.
3. Communicate the works that are outstanding and a plan for when these will be completed. The landlord should provide timescales for when it aims to complete the works, in-line with the repairs policy.
4. Confirm the results of the asbestos test.
5. Provide training to staff handling complaints to ensure compliance with the complaints policy and the Code, unless the landlord can demonstrate it has done so in the last six months.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its record–keeping practices around capturing detail of the findings and works carried out. The landlord may find it helpful to consider specific recommendations the Ombudsman made in our January 2025 spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’.