Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202424550)

Background

1. The resident is the leaseholder of a 2 bedroom flat in a building for which the landlord is the freeholder. The landlord agreed to replace the roof of the bay window in the bedroom which was leaking and repair damage caused to the inside of the property by the leak.

What the complaint is about

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

• Repairs to a leaking bay window.
• The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leaking bay window.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord took 6 months to inspect the bay window, and a further 21 months to complete the repairs. It did not proactively monitor or plan the work to minimise delays and disruption to the resident. It did not communicate clearly with the resident about the asbestos survey, what repairs it would carry out and when it would complete them. It did not consider whether it should prioritise the repairs due to the resident’s medical condition.
6. Both complaint stage responses were issued significantly later than the timescales in the landlord’s policy.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we did not consider

7. The resident told us this issue has been ongoing since around 2021 and the landlord carried out patch repairs which quickly failed. Our Scheme says we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. There is evidence the resident raised a formal complaint on or around 27 December 2023. We have not seen evidence he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. Therefore, our investigation has considered the landlord’s actions from December 2022 onwards.

8. In line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for keeping the structure of the building and any communal areas in good repair. There is no evidence it is obliged to repair the inside of a leasehold property. However, it is clear it accepted responsibility for the repairs to rectify damage inside the property in addition to repairing the bay window roof. This is a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take if it believed its failure to resolve the leak at the earliest opportunity caused or contributed to the damage.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says:
   1.  it aims to complete repairs within the following timescales:
      1. emergency same day – make safe and if possible complete the repair with 6 hours, complete any follow up repairs within the appropriate priority category timescale
      2. emergency – make safe and if possible complete the repair within 24 hours, complete any follow up repairs within the appropriate category timescale
      3. urgent – attend and if possible complete the repair within 3 working days, complete any follow up repairs within the appropriate category timescale
      4. routine – attend and complete the repair within 20 working days
      5. planned and major – attend to plan the works within 40 working days.
   2. when raising a roof repair it will ask residents if there are visible signs of water ingress
   3. the landlord may offer an additional level of priority to vulnerable residents such as those with a recognised disability.
10. The resident contacted the landlord about “ongoing issues with the roof” on 10 March 2023. Its records say it advised the resident to discuss damage to the inside of the property with its leasehold team. There is no evidence it asked the resident if there were any visible signs of water ingress, there are no associated work orders, and the notes include a repair reference that doesn’t have a corresponding record. The landlord failed to maintain clear, accurate records and did not act in line with its policy by failing to ask about signs of water ingress.
11. The landlord carried out an inspection on 26 September 2023. Its records say it planned to renew the bay window roof and repair the internal walls. There is no evidence to explain the reason for the delay, or that it communicated with the resident during this time. There is no evidence the resident pursued the matter between March and September 2023. However, it is the landlord’s responsibility to respond to repair requests appropriately, without relying on the resident to chase progress. The landlord should attend within 3 working days of receiving a report of a leak to assess the extent of the work it needs to do and plan for repairs to be completed within a reasonable timescale. Its failure to carry out an inspection until over 6 months after the resident contacted it was inappropriate and not in line with the repair timescales set out in its policy.
12. On the same day as the inspection, the landlord requested an asbestos survey. In an email to the resident on 8 November 2023, it asked the resident to contact the contractor directly to arrange an appointment for the survey. There is evidence of contact between the landlord and resident on or around 22 November and 27 December 2023. The landlord told the resident:
    1. the works had been “scoped and passed to the team”
    2. it was working through outstanding jobs
    3. it would contact the resident when it had availability
13. It is positive that the landlord requested the survey promptly. However, there is no evidence the landlord clearly told the resident an asbestos survey must be carried out before the works could start. The landlord’s failure to monitor progress, and poor communication with the resident in November and December 2023 meant it missed opportunities to progress the repair.
14. On 31 January 2024, the landlord logged a routine repair for the window frames. It noted that whilst waiting for the bay window roof to be replaced, the frames had become damaged and were “letting the elements in”. It notified the resident of the associated appointment for 26 June 2024 in its stage 1 response. The landlord recorded the appointment as ‘no access’. The appointment was booked for 102 working days after it logged the repair. This is outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy which says it should attend and complete a routine repair within 20 working days. This is an inappropriate delay and a further missed opportunity to progress the outstanding repairs.
15. The records show that on 20 March 2024 and 9 May 2024 the resident told the landlord that fungus was growing in the window frames. The landlord gave us a strategic report dated 6 April 2023 concerning its approach to damp and mould. The report says it will carry out a wash mould within 3 working days of receiving a report of damp. There is no evidence the landlord carried out mould treatment in response to the reports of fungus growth. This is unreasonable and not in line with its stated approach to damp and mould.
16. After the resident complained, the landlord booked the asbestos survey for 27 March 2024. The records show the resident rescheduled the first appointment and missed the next appointment on 5 April 2024. The contractor identified that scaffolding needed to be installed when it attended on 22 April 2024. The landlord did not contact its scaffolding contractor until 19 working days later, after the resident asked for an update. The landlord recorded an appointment on 21 June 2024 as ‘no access’. However, there is no evidence it notified the resident of this appointment in advance. On 3 July 2024 the landlord and contractor agreed the resident did not need to provide access because the survey was of an external area. Its repairs policy says it will complete planned repairs within 40 working days. Poor planning and communication with the contractor meant it did not complete the survey until 9 July 2024. This was 70 working days from when the survey was first booked, and 199 working days after the landlord identified the need for the survey. This is an unreasonable delay during a time when the resident reported that the damage was worsening. It caused the resident inconvenience because the landlord asked him to be present for appointments unnecessarily and he had to chase for updates about the scaffolding.
17. The landlord told us the resident did not tell it about any vulnerabilities during the complaint. However, the evidence shows that:
    1. in an email on 9 May 2024, the resident told the landlord about his medical circumstances
    2. the landlord referred to the resident as vulnerable in an internal email on 13 May 2024
    3. in an email to the resident on 6 November 2024 it confirmed it was aware he has a suppressed immune system and the “issues may present risk to health”.
18. The landlord failed to appropriately record the resident’s vulnerabilities. There is no evidence it considered whether it should prioritise the repairs due to the resident’s circumstances. This is inappropriate and not in line with its repairs policy.
19. The landlord repaired the bay window roof 22 working days after it completed the asbestos survey. This was reasonable and showed it appropriately progressed the repair. However, it did not provide the resident with a ‘customer diary’ or information confirming the schedule of works as it promised to do in its stage 2 response. This was unreasonable and meant the resident was unsure what internal repairs would be carried out and when.
20. After completing the external repairs, the landlord did not progress the internal repairs for 11 weeks. The resident contacted it 5 times during this period. There is no evidence it responded which was unreasonable and ultimately led to the resident referring the complaint to us. It is a failure that the landlord did not have a robust system or process in place to progress follow on repairs in line with the 40 day timescale set out in its policy.
21. The landlord attended to carry out the internal repairs on 31 October 2024. However, it did not complete any repairs because it found the work required was more extensive than stated in the work order. The resident told it 4 times since its original inspection in September 2023 that the damage was worsening. The landlord’s internal communications in October 2024 demonstrate it was unsure what work was required. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 6 November 2024 and completed the repairs on 3 December 2024. The landlord should have identified earlier that it needed to carry out an up to date inspection. Its actions were inappropriate and caused further delays and inconvenience to the resident.
22. The resident told us he was significantly affected by the ongoing leak. He said:
    1. Water leaked through the window and down the walls
    2. Mushrooms were growing through the wooden frames
    3.  Mould spread across the walls
    4. The floorboards were rotten.
23. The repairs the landlord carried out suggest the resident’s description of the damage caused by the leak is accurate.
24. The resident also told us:
    1. He lost sleep because of the sound of water dripping
    2. He often experienced breathing issues
    3. Mould damaged his clothing
    4. Here paired his furniture and flooring multiple times.
25. We cannot make decisions about liability or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. In its stage 1 response the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurer. If the resident is seeking damages, he may wish to pursue a personal injury and/or insurance claim.
26. In summary, the landlord took 14 months to complete the repairs it accepted responsibility for in September 2023. Its lack of oversight, failure to follow its repairs policy, poor record keeping, communication and planning resulted in delays which significantly impacted a vulnerable resident. Its offer of £150 compensation is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £750 compensation.

27. The landlord’s policy for housing complaints is in line with our complaint handling code and says it will:
    1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days.
    2. Issue a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days.
    3. Issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation.
    4. Provide an explanation and a clear timeframe for when the response will be issued if additional time is needed.
28. The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with its policy because:
    1. it failed to acknowledge the complaint until 55 working days after the earliest record indicating the resident had complained, and only after the resident asked to escalate it to stage 2
    2. it failed to issue its stage 1 response until 50 working days after it acknowledged the complaint
    3. it failed to issue the stage 2 response until 36 working days after it was escalated
    4. there is no evidence the landlord told the resident it needed additional time to provide its responses.
29. The landlord’s failure to comply with its policy resulted in time and trouble for the resident chasing up the complaint, and unreasonable delays which affected its handling of the repairs.
30. The landlord offered a total of £150 compensation for the delay completing the asbestos survey and acknowledging the complaint. The landlord should have clearly explained in its complaint response how it had calculated the compensation offer.
31. The landlord’s offer of compensation is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Whilst it apologised and offered compensation for the delay acknowledging the complaint, it did not recognise or apologise for the significant delays issuing its responses at both stages. These were failures which adversely impacted the resident. Therefore, we have ordered it to apologise and pay the resident £200 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s handling of the repair. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its actions and decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.
33. Effective housing management systems and processes should ensure the landlord can monitor and progress repairs in line with its priority timescales.

Communication

34. The landlord should communicate clearly with residents when actions such as asbestos surveys are required before it can start repairs.
35. The provision of information to residents in the format of a ‘customer diary’ detailing what repairs it will carry out and when is a positive step. However, the landlord should ensure it follows through on commitments to provide such information which will reassure residents it has a plan in place to complete repairs.