Tendring District Council (202317086)

Background

1. The resident lives in a second-floor flat with her daughter. She has health conditions and has said the complaint has negatively impacted her mental health. She has been reporting leaks to her landlord since 2021 and has raised concerns about the presence of asbestos in her property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of a roof leak.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a roof leak.

6. There were significant delays in the landlord completing the repairs to the roof. The landlord did not provide regular updates to the resident. It has now completed the work and it acknowledged in its stage 2 complaints response that the delays had been unreasonable. It identified learning and said how it would improve things in the future. It offered £900 compensation which we consider to be reasonable inline with our remedies guidance. This is because there were significant delays and the matter had a detrimental effect on the resident.

      The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response outside of the timescales in its complaints process. It did not acknowledge the delay, despite the resident needing to chase the response.

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.

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.

8. We have seen evidence that the resident reported a leak on 28 September 2021. The landlord’s repairs records indicate this was attended to on 7 December 2021. The resident reported a further leak in 2022 which the landlord attended to. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 that the resident had reported leaks since 2021 and that there had been unreasonable delays in relation to these repairs.
9. On 28 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report another leak. She said she had first reported the matter in 2021. She said that there was water dripping through a light in the communal ceiling. She had concerns regarding safety. We would expect the landlord to consider the risk and ensure that there were no safety concerns. We have not seen that the landlord attended this repair, or that it carried out any risk assessment.
10. Internal emails dated12 May 2023 between the resident, landlord and its contractor said that a bird’s nest had been located in the roof and this was preventing repairs from being completed. As birds’ nests cannot be disturbed while the birds are actively nesting, we consider the delay due to this to be unavoidable. The landlord asked the resident to report once the birds were gone, which was appropriate.
11. On 19 July 2023 the resident said that she believed the nesting birds were gone. She also said there was a crack in her ceiling and she had concerns about asbestos. The landlord responded on 20 July 2023 and said it would attend on 31 July 2023. We have not seen evidence that it attended this appointment or that it provided an update to the resident. We consider this likely caused frustration to the resident.
12. An email from the contractor dated 2 October 2023 said that the leak had been repaired on 9 August 2023. We have not seen evidence of this in the landlord’s repairs records. We would have expected the landlord to update the resident on its progress in completing the repairs. We have not seen it did this.
13. The resident contacted the landlord regarding the ceiling cracks and asbestos on 20 September 2023. The landlord attended the property on 27 September 2023. It said there was no active leak. It made the communal ceiling safe. It noted that redecoration works were needed and that there was some damage to a ceiling. The landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s report of a repair. However, it should have arranged the follow on works and updated the resident. We have not seen it did this.
14. The resident requested an update on 2 October 2023. The landlord responded on the same day. It said it did not know works were needed to the bathroom ceiling but that it would arrange for someone to inspect this. It also said it would ask someone to make the communal ceiling safe. We note the bathroom ceiling had been inspected on the landlord’s previous visit and the job report had said that the communal ceiling had been made safe. The landlord did not reference this job report and it appears there was crossover between the works completed on that job and what the landlord believed to be outstanding. We consider that this update may have caused confusion as it did not match the landlord’s repairs records.
15. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it would carry out an asbestos survey for 27 October 2023 so it could complete the remaining works. Whilst this was an appropriate action from the landlord, it did not offer an explanation as to why it had not done this sooner. The landlord had been aware of asbestos for several months. The resident had also told the landlord that the presence of asbestos was causing her significant anxiety. The landlord should have taken steps at the earliest opportunity to assess the asbestos and provide assurance to the resident regarding risk levels.
16. The landlord completed its asbestos survey on 27 October 2023 for the resident’s flat. It said it removed asbestos tiles from her bathroom ceiling. Therefore, the landlord took action to address the asbestos concerns.
17. The landlord issued a letter to all residents on 3 November 2023 advising they would need to leave the building on 14 November 2023 or stay in their flat so that it could complete repairs. This was due to the presence of asbestos. The works on 14 November 2023 could not go ahead, as it was subsequently identified that the information that residents could remain in their flat was incorrect. This was because if there was an emergency, residents would need to evacuate through a potentially contaminated area. While we recognise that the cancelled appointment is likely to have caused inconvenience, we consider the landlord acted appropriately to ensure the safety of its residents.
18. We have seen some works orders dated 1 December 2023 confirming that the asbestos tiles to the second floor ceiling were removed, for repairs to take place. We understand works to repair the leak and associated damage also took place on this day, however we have not seen evidence of this from the landlord. As such we are unable to confirm the specifics of the repair that it completed and whether this resolved the issue.
19. On 19 December 2023 the resident sent an email asking for an update on her complaint. She said the work had not been carried out. It is unclear from the email which work the resident was referring to. The landlord’s stage 2 said that it had done all work except for some redecoration work. It said it needed to wait for the new plaster to dry. We consider this to be a reasonable reason for the decoration work to be delayed. However, we consider that the landlord could have provided a more comprehensive update to the resident on what work it had done to repair the leak.
20. We have not seen confirmation of when the landlord completed the decorative works. However, we note the resident has said works have been completed.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 20 December 2023 acknowledged there had been significant delays in it completing repairs. It identified that issues with contractors, staffing issues, difficulties in accessing the leaks and asbestos all contributed to the delays. However, it acknowledged that it should have completed the works sooner. It identified areas it needed to improve on and committed to increasing its staff numbers, carry out training and improve its data system. It offered £500 compensation. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 January 2024 to say she was unhappy with the stage 2 response and the landlord responded on 25 January 2024 offering to increase the compensation to £900. We consider £900 to be appropriate compensation in line with our remedies guidance where there has been significant delays and a detrimental impact to the resident.
22. As the landlord has completed the repairs, acknowledged failings, identified learning and offered compensation, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

25. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The Ombudsman sent the complaint to the landlord on 2 October 2023 and advised we expected a response by 23 October 2023. The landlord responded on this day and as such we consider it issued the stage 1 response in a reasonable timeframe.
26. The resident escalated the complaint on 27 October 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and issue a response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord issued the response 38 working days after the resident made the complaint. The resident chased the response on more than one occasion. The landlord did not respond in the timeframes as per its complaints policy and we consider that the delay caused frustration for the resident.
27. As the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint we consider a payment of £50 to be appropriate. This is in recognition that there was a delay which is likely to have had a detrimental impact, but that it was a short delay.

Learning

28. The landlord’s stage 2 response identified several areas of learning. We consider it positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings and provided ways it would improve things in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. We have not seen all the repairs records. We would encourage the landlord to keep accurate details of any repairs and provide these to the Ombudsman when requested.

Communication.

30. We have identified that the landlord’s communication could have been better. In particular we note updates to the resident contained limited or confusing information.