Greenhill Housing Association (202343468)

Background

1. The resident reported roof leaks and that the garden trees appeared neglected. She was concerned about the property management of the building. The landlord had carried out some repairs to the roof, but the resident remained dissatisfied with the handling of the issue and raised a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about roof leaks and property management.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about roof leaks and property management.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord breached its repair obligations because it took too long to carry out the appropriate roof repairs that specialist contractors had recommended. It failed to consider that the building provided sheltered accommodation for residents with age-related vulnerabilities.
5. We found the landlord followed its complaint handling policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), responding to the resident within the applicable timescales.

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.

6. In September 2022, the landlord held discussions about the roof and then sought quotes for its replacement. The landlord’s records dated 26 September 2022 show it received a quote from a contractor “highly recommending” the roof was re-felted. The landlord noted this to be discussed during a meeting on 6 October 2022.There is no evidence of the outcome of this discussion or that the landlord pursued the work at the time. It would have been reasonable to have expected the landlord to act on the advice of specialist contractors. However, it was also entitled to seek alternative quotes providing it was able to meet any repair obligations within policy timescales.
7. The resident formally complained to the landlord that despite quotes being obtained a year ago, the roof had not been replaced and only chippings had been removed. She said that the leaking roof was causing damp patches in some of the properties and in the communal stairwell. The landlord told the resident it would inspect the roof for potential leaks and then seek the Board of Trustees’ approval for any repair works it identified. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and demonstrated a willingness to address the resident’s concerns.
8. The resident requested the Board of Trustees’ details, as she was concerned that their irregular meetings might impact the progress of the repairs. The landlord declined to comment and advised her to contact the board directly. The landlord did not explain this advice, despite retaining overall responsibility for the board.
9. More than 5 months elapsed after the landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that it would inspect the roof for leaks. Yet it made no arrangements until we had asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord initially scheduled a visit for 29 February 2024 but cancelled it due to poor weather. Once it completed the inspection, it found the roof gradient was “not enough for it to run towards drainage points”, causing ponding. This repeated the findings made by roofers and reported to the landlord “at least 2 years ago”. We found this to be a serious failure to act on specialist advice, breaching the landlord’s repair obligations under legislation and the tenancy agreement.
10. The landlord’s record dated 21 March 2024 noted that roofers had previously attended and “removed the solar reflective chippings”, but it did not refer to this in its complaint response.
11. On 29 April 2024, the landlord told the resident it was holding ongoing discussions about the roof. It said it would request the Board of Trustees’ approval for any works required and complete them within 2 months.
12. On 24 September 2024, the landlord recorded that it had completed a scoping exercise for the roof project. It held two meetings with residents in line with its Planned Maintenance Policy, demonstrating a willingness to address the issue and involve residents appropriately. However, this action came late and only followed the complaint being brought to us and our escalation. There has been no explanation for the delay. While complex repairs may take longer, we find a delay of over two years excessive. Once the roof was reassessed, the landlord acted promptly on specialist advice. It should have completed the necessary repairs much earlier to meet its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
13. The resident also reported that the landlord had not maintained a willow tree since she moved in in December 2021, and raised concerns this could affect the drainage system. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for garden maintenance, which the resident pays for through a service charge. The landlord confirmed that tree roots were protruding from the ground and growing towards the building. It arranged for a tree specialist to assess the issue and notified its insurer. We found this to be an appropriate response.
14. Our compensation guidance states that compensation is appropriate to put things right where maladministration has caused significant impact. The landlord provided incorrect information and failed to respond promptly to repeated reports of roof leaks affecting multiple households. It did not consider that the building provided sheltered housing or the residents may have age-related vulnerabilities. Although it apologised, it did not properly recognise the inconvenience caused. The landlord did not offer a goodwill gesture or discretionary compensation in line with its policy.

15. In awarding £200 in compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the significant delays in resolving a known issue that was reported repeatedly and affected multiple households.

16. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its 2-stage complaint policy both comply with the Code. The landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and send a full response within 10 working days of acknowledgement at stage 1. Its policy does not clearly specify the written acknowledgement required at stage 2. However, it will send its final response within 20 working days of receipt (rather than acknowledgement) and this timescale complies with the Code.
17. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint was compliant with both its complaint policy and the Code.
18. We progressed the complaint to stage 2 on the resident’s behalf. We asked the landlord to notify us and the resident if it could not meet the given deadline, but there is no evidence it did so. The landlord later apologised for the delay. It cited possible confusion over the dates stating it had updated its policy, which indicates the previous version may already have been appropriate.
19. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in writing, 4 working days after receipt, in line with its policy and the Code. It issued its final response 19 working days later, also in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord stated it had no record of roof repair jobs for the resident’s property. However, we found evidence of poor record-keeping that may have contributed to its failure to follow up repairs. Its records show the tenancy began on 3 October 2022, while the tenancy agreement records a start date of 20 December 2021. We also found its response to the resident about the solar chippings contradicted its internal records. The landlord should remind staff of the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records.

Communication

21. The landlord acknowledged the need to improve its communication with residents. However, its apology focused on the resident having cause to complain, rather than on its actions that led to the complaint. The landlord should reflect on the learning in our Spotlight report: Repairing Trust, to improve communication with residents during prolonged repair issues.