London Borough of Redbridge (202230847)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230847

London Borough of Redbridge

5 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:
1. The landlords handling of the residents reports of repairs including a leaking roof, concerns for the structural safety of the roof, drainage issues and ground flooding.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council, and has lived in the property since October 2015. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 2nd floor of a converted office block. The resident has poor physical and mental health which the landlord is aware of.
On 9 January 2023 a building surveyor appointed by the resident’s solicitor completed a report for the resident’s disrepair claim. The report found that:
1. There was a hole in the living room ceiling which allowed water into the room when it rained. The surveyor recommended that the landlord repair the hole in the ceiling, repair all water damage and replaster following the roof replacement.
2. The communal roof was in poor condition and actively leaking. A full replacement was recommended.
3. There was evidence that a leak in the bathroom had caused damage to the ceiling and had been temporarily repaired. The leak was likely to recur if the roof was not repaired.
4. The underfloor heating was not functioning. An engineer should attend to diagnose and repair the fault.
On 17 January 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said that she had experienced leaks from the roof since 2016, and the landlord had admitted structural defects. She also highlighted that there were external drainage issues which had caused flooding on the ground floor. She said that the damp had caused damage to her walls and ceiling, and it was impossible to get the flat fully dry due to the level of water ingress. She said that she was “living in fear” and anxious about the situation and asked the landlord to resolve the issue.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 31 January 2023. It stated that as project managers had taken over the roof works, it could not uphold her complaint. She escalated her complaint on 8 February 2023. She said that the landlord did not investigate the 7-year period that the roof needed fixing and the damage that had been caused to her property. She said that there was damp and mould, water damage to the walls, and she was scared that when it rained the ceiling would collapse. She also said that her mental health had been affected by the anxiety she experienced because of the issues with the roof.
The following day the resident’s MP contacted the landlord and expressed concern at its complaint response. He asked the landlord to provide an urgent response to both him and the resident highlighting its plans for repairs with an explanation of the delays.
On 28 February 2023 the MP chased the landlord on the resident’s behalf for its stage 2 complaint response. Internal records show that a quote was provided to the landlord by a subcontractor for a replacement roof. A purchase order was raised on 15 March 2023 for internal remedial works within the property following a roof leak. The MP again chased the landlord for the stage 2 response on 16 March 2023. The resident contacted this Service on 20 March 2023, as she had not received a stage 2 response. On 21 March 2023 the MP contacted the landlord to chase the complaint response again, and relay the resident’s concerns that the ceiling was going to collapse.
On 31 March 2023 a senior manager of the landlord requested an update on works from the repair team and was informed:
1. A Closed-Circuit TV (CCTV) survey found there was erosion within the sewerage system and several chambers were not connected to downpipes.
2. A tin roof was installed on the building to mitigate further water ingress and dead weight was removed.
3. Throughout April and May 2023 it would install:
  1. A new external discharge outlet from the roof.
  2. A permanent roof covering.
  3. External downpipes.
4. Once the roof was replaced, external groundworks would start which included:
  1. Overhaul and renew the chain to the sewer gate valve.
  2. Building a retaining wall along the car park descent wall.
  3. Configuring the drain along the perimeter of the building to discharge into new and existing drainage systems.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. It relayed the update from 31 March 2023 and confirmed that both the roof and drainage works would be managed by its planned programme team who started the works on 17 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding and upheld the resident’s complaint.
Throughout April and May 2023, the resident appointed a solicitor who contacted the landlord to notify them of a disrepair claim as part of the pre-action protocol. Following discussion between the parties, the resident’s solicitor informed her on 3 May 2023 that the landlord had offered a settlement. The resident accepted the settlement and associated damages, and the case did not proceed to court.
On 26 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to support her with moving to an alternative property due to disrepair with the roof, drains and underfloor heating. She said that it was affecting her physical and mental health. On 27 July 2023 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord to request support with a move. The MP said the resident had recently experienced a cardiac arrest following a panic attack which resulted in hospitalisation. The landlord responded on 1 August 2023 and said that while the resident was adequately housed, she could send her request and medical evidence to the council’s housing allocations team.
The resident reported a roof leak on 20 September 2023 which caused her lights to blow. Two days later the MP chased the landlord about the repairs. It responded on 4 October 2023 and confirmed that the repairs and maintenance team would inspect the roof and the internal ceiling. On 10 October 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had not been contacted to book the inspection and had found new water stains in her bedroom.
Internal records from 7 November 2023 said that it no longer employed the operative who had previously repaired the roof. Throughout the rest of November and December 2023 the landlord chased the contractor for an update on the repair. On 2 January 2024 the contractor told the landlord that the roof was checked “before Christmas” and no issues were found. They said they had tried to visit the resident, but she was out.
The resident informed us on 12 March 2024 that she remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the roof and drainage repairs, and the landlord’s complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

There is evidence that the drainage issues had been ongoing since at least 2016, and the resident told us that the roof leaks had been occurring since she moved in. Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally 12 months of the matters arising. For this reason, this report will investigate the landlord’s handling of repairs from January 2022, as the resident made her complaint in January 2023.
The resident told the landlord about the stress and anxiety the situation had caused on multiple occasions. She said that she felt the situation was having a negative impact on her physical health following her cardiac arrest. The Ombudsman cannot make a determination about any causal link between the delays and the resident’s health. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused.

The landlords handling of repairs requested by the resident including a leaking roof, concerns for the structural safety of the roof, drainage issues and ground flooding.

According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord has a responsibility to repair the structure and exterior of the building which includes, roofs, walls, floors, ceilings, drains, gutters and outside pipes. Its repairs policy also states:
1. It is responsible for internal walls, ceilings, and water leaking into electrics.
2. It has a responsibility to correct penetrating damp and mould.
3. Any damp or mould caused by condensation is the responsibility of the resident.
Based on internal records and a copy of the resident’s correspondence, damp in the property likely occurred because of water entering through the roof. While damage was initially isolated to the ceiling, it later affected internal walls. The resident has informed us that there is still evidence of the water ingress. She has also told us that her underfloor heating has not been functional for some time, and this has been reported to the landlord. We will not make any orders or determinations in relation to the heating as it was not raised in the original complaint. However, a lack of heating will affect the length of time taken for the ceilings and walls to dry out and could lead to further damp and mould in the future.
The landlord has a responsibility under the tenancy agreement, and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004 to ensure there is a working heating system. We recommend the landlord surveys the heating system and ensures that it is fully functional to reduce the chance of a recurrence of damp and mould.
Both the resident and landlord have confirmed that the roof issues were ongoing for just under 6 years. In its pre-court settlement, the landlord calculated damages from May 2017 as this was the date that the repairs became known. The resident informed the landlord repeatedly of the impact she believed the roof issues had on her physical and mental health, namely anxiety, panic attacks and a cardiac arrest. In total the roof needed repairs for approximately 306 weeks. This is an unreasonable length of time for the resident to be impacted by the disrepair.
We recognise that damages were offered to the resident as part of the settlement, and this was the amount of 15% of rent for 322 weeks refunded plus a 10% uplift in line with a wider judicial ruling. In our opinion this was reasonable in line with our remedies guidance when there are significant failings identified. No additional compensation will be ordered for the repair elements of this complaint.
The communication in this case was poor and resulted in the resident feeling that her only option was to contact her MP, this Service and a disrepair solicitor for support. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered the specific impact of the leak and associated damp on the resident at any point throughout the repairs process. It also did not take any steps to mitigate the impact such as considering a decant, accelerating repairs or providing dehumidifiers.
Considering the above there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and communal drains. The resident was left with a leaking roof which led to a collapsed ceiling and internal damp and mould, for an unacceptable period. It did not consider the emotional, mental and physical distress that the resident reported experiencing during this time, and its communication regarding roof repairs was poor.
The resident has confirmed to us that internal remedial works to the walls and ceiling still have not been completed. The record keeping and communication regarding the communal drainage was poor, and we cannot confirm when or if the work was completed. The resident should not have needed to go to a solicitor for redress, which caused her additional time, trouble and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. The stage 1 response was issued 11 days after the resident made her complaint, and this was reasonable when allowing 2 working days for formal acknowledgment. We have not been provided with a copy of the formal acknowledgement to the resident. The stage 2 response came 50 days after the resident requested escalation. This is more than double the timescale specified in the policy and is not appropriate.
At stage 1 of the complaints process the landlord did not respond to all the points raised by the resident. It did not mention her concerns about damp, or the drainage and flooding issues. Its explanation that it could not uphold her complaint as the works were being managed by project managers, was not reasonable. Regardless of the status of the repairs at the time, the landlord should have examined its actions leading up to the resident’s complaint and whether there had been service failures. It should also have addressed all the points raised by the resident and provided feedback for each.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it does not award compensation when a disrepair claim is ongoing. While this may explain why it did not offer compensation for the roof and drainage issues, it does not explain why it did not offer redress for its complaint handling failures. Given the delay in the stage 2 response, the landlord should have offered redress to the resident.
The landlord did not acknowledge that its stage 2 response was late. While it apologised for the resident waiting a long time for the repairs, it did not apologise for its complaint handling failures. It did not acknowledge the impact on the resident, who had already said that she felt she was not being taken seriously. The resident contacted the Ombudsman and her MP for support with pushing for a stage 2 response, which she should not have needed to do. The landlord’s communication should have been clear and regular and made sure that the resident knew why the response was delayed, and when she should expect it.
Considering all the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its stage 1 response was not reasonable and failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. The stage 2 response was delayed and required prompting by the MP and the Ombudsman. The delay was not explained or recognised, there is no evidence that the landlord learned from the complaint, and no redress was offered to the resident.

The landlord’s record keeping

Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. 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.
In the absence of evidence from the landlord regarding completion dates of the drainage and roof works, this Service has relied on the resident’s evidence. She confirmed to us that to her knowledge the roof was replaced however she experienced additional leaks for a short time after the repair. It is not clear when these were resolved. She has also told us that remedial work to the internal ceiling and walls was not completed, and that water stains are still present. She is not certain whether the drains were repaired but has reported no ongoing issues with the drainage.
We contacted the landlord for more information regarding the resident’s disrepair claim and pre-court settlement. While it provided clarification of its calculations and how much it offered, it did not confirm whether this was accepted and if so, when it was paid.
The repair records provided by the landlord did not cover the period requested. We requested repair logs for 2023 to 2024 but have not received them. We have therefore relied on the resident’s evidence and other internal records, such as emails and case notes. The poor record keeping in this case has restricted the landlord’s ability to put things right, learn from its mistakes or review its performance.
Given the scale of the record keeping issues the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to make a separate finding of maladministration for the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman has issued guidance about record keeping, Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management, which stresses the importance of good record keeping. This guidance is available on our website.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs requested by the resident including a leaking roof, concerns for the structural safety of the roof, drainage issues and ground flooding.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 2 weeks of this report, a senior manager at the landlord must apologise to the resident, in the format she prefers, for its failings in this case, which include:
  1. The length of time taken to stop the leaks from the roof.
  2. Its communication with the resident throughout the repairs process for both the roof and the drainage system.
  3. Its handling of internal remedial works following water damage to the walls and ceiling.
  4. Record keeping failures.
  5. Complaint handling failures.
  6. Its failure to recognise the individual impact of these failures on the resident because of her health conditions.
  7. A copy of this apology must be shared with the Ombudsman within 2 weeks of this report.
2. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £750 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience she experienced during the complaints process. Proof of payment must be provided to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance.
3. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must assess the resident’s ceiling and walls in affected rooms, and plan for any required remedial repairs for example plastering or stain blocking. It should also take note of any additional areas of disrepair found during this assessment and take appropriate action. A copy of the assessment must be provided to the Ombudsman.
4. Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord must complete a review of this case to examine the failings identified and set out what actions it will take to ensure a recurrence does not happen. A copy of this review must be provided to the Ombudsman.
Within the next 12 weeks the landlord must review its record keeping practices. The review should include, but not be limited to:
1. How it records emergency and non-emergency repairs, and major works. It should ensure that there are clear and understandable records of:
  1. The original description of the job.
  2. What work was done on site.
  3. Any follow up works.
  4. Expected completion dates of major works.
  5. How often it updates the resident for all repairs, and where details of these updates are stored.
2. Ensuring that repairs information is in an easily readable and accessible format both for the landlord and external agencies such as the Ombudsman.
3. How it provides information regarding to the Ombudsman, and where it gets the information from. This should include:
  1. Ensuring it provides thorough repair logs which are relevant to the period being investigated.
  2. Ensuring it provides clear information relating to disrepair claims, whether they reach court or are settled beforehand. This includes the date of any settlement, any associated terms, and proof of compliance with the settlement.
  3. Ensuring internal records are clear and relevant to the time being investigated.
  4. Providing clear complaint correspondence in order to demonstrate where complaints are escalated, and where it is more appropriate to raise new complaints.
4. A copy of this assessment should be provided to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
1. The landlord should survey the resident’s heating system and ensure it is fit for purpose. If any repairs are identified these should be completed within its policy timescales.
2. The landlord should ensure its current repairs policy and damp and mould strategy considers the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report into damp and mould which is available on our website.