A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (201905450)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201905450

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

21 July 2023

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:
1. Handling of the leaseholder’s reports of leaks into her property which led to internal damage.
2. Complaints handling.

Background and Summary of Events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a two-bedroom, third floor property which she lets out to a tenant. The landlord holds the freehold of the property.
The leaseholder had over the past eight years, reported consistent leaks at her property to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s reports and complaints. It attributes the issue to a defect in the roof. The landlord made unsuccessful attempts to have the original developers fix the defect, then the landlord passed the work on to its specialist contractor to resolve the issue.
This service has not been provided with a copy of a lease in the leaseholder’s name. However, the Ombudsman believes it is reasonable that the terms and obligations within the lease provided to this service by the landlord would be similar or the same as that which should have been issued to the leaseholder.
The lease states the landlord shall maintain or procure the maintenance of repair, redecoration, improvement, renewal of the roof foundations and main structure of the building including all external and load-bearing walls, the windows, and doors on the outside of the flats within the building and all parts of the building which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not include information about latent defects. It splits its repairs into two categories, these are, urgent repairs which are dealt with within 24 hours, and standard repairs, which are dealt with at the next available appointment which is convenient with the customer. It states it is responsible for repairs to the roof of the property and treats these as a standard repair. It states that leaseholders are responsible for repairs to the windows and doors of the property.
The landlord’s complaints policy provided to this service states upon receipt of a complaint, an acknowledgement would be sent within two working days. The complaint would be allocated to a complaints and resolution caseworker, who has a further one to two working days, from the day of receipt by the landlord to contact the resident. The policy does not provide timescales for the provision of responses for either its stage one or stage two process. The landlord’s current policy also does not provide timescales for the provision of stage one or two complaint responses, however its service standards which were updated after the leaseholder’s complaint now state it aims to respond to stage one complaints within 10-days.

Summary of Events

On 30 August 2019, the leaseholder emailed her landlord about the ongoing issue with the persistent roof leak that the landlord’s contractor had first identified seven years ago. She explained that she had written to the landlord about it four years before. She expressed her frustration over the lack of resolution despite constantly contacting them. The leak caused significant damage to various parts of her property, including the floors, skirting, plastering, painting, and flooring. This unresolved issue had caused her and her family considerable stress, pressure, and anxiety. She asked:
1. To see a full report on what works had been completed on the roof.
2. Why the roof, which was built incorrectly had not been changed and they had been trying to fix this for seven years.
3. For sight of its contractor’s report, and for it to get independent advice from a qualified surveyor.
4. For the landlord to pay for the costs of an independent surveyor to look at the roof, and work done, and provide a written report to ensure the leak was addressed.
5. For compensation for the seven years that she had the leak.
On 13 and 16 September 2019, the leaseholder chased progress of her complaint. On 19 September 2019, the landlord apologised to the leaseholder, for its late response. It said it had now raised her complaint, as there were leaks in the property and explained the repairs to the roof were treated as a latent defect. The leaseholder responded and explained that the leaks worsened after the landlord’s repairs two years prior, causing damage to her property. She said there was a faulty wooden door which did not shut properly anymore due to constant water ingress, caused by standing water on the roof. The water ingress had leaked over the power sockets many times, and she had to call the emergency services to ensure the worst did not happen.
There was no further communication between both parties for 16 weeks, and then between 10 January and 15 January 2020, the landlord and leaseholder communicated. The landlord provided the leaseholder with a dehumidifier, which she later confirmed she had received. She reported further property damage due to rainwater and the wind. She said her door remained open all night and whilst at work, and it required an urgent fix. The leaseholder further emailed the landlord and expressed her frustration. She said she understood it was working on the repairs, but the issue should have been rectified eight years ago when the leak was first discovered. She explained she had taken 11 days off work since June 2019, due to meeting with its contractors at her property, to fix the issues caused by the leak, and explained the extent of the damage to her doors and windows. The leaseholder said she was distressed and feeling pressured and had consulted with her doctors due to the stress the issue had caused her and her family. She stated she wanted a formal response from the landlord.
During this period, it was confirmed that there was water ingress into the leaseholder’s property, which originated from a neighbour’s balcony, due to a cut in the waterproofing. On 14 January 2020, dates were agreed with the leaseholder’s neighbour for works to be completed to the waterproofing for February 2020. The works were completed in late February 2020.
The landlord’s contractor contacted the leaseholder on 2 March 2020, and put forward a proposal of remedial works it aimed to complete. It contacted her again on 17 March 2020, to fix a date for measuring her windows and doors for renewal on 20 March 2020. It explained these works were dependent on COVID-19. On 18 March 2020, it informed the leaseholder that her tenant was not comfortable with this until the COVID-19 outbreak was over.
On 1 July 2020, the landlord’s contractor emailed the leaseholder regarding the outstanding renewal of the windows and doors.
There then appears to be a two-month gap in communication between the leaseholder and the contractor, and a seven-month gap between the leaseholder and the landlord. Further discussions were held between the leaseholder, landlord and its contractor between 11 September 2020 and 24 September 2020. The leaseholder sought to identify dates and timelines for the repairs and surveys to be completed. On 22 September 2020, the leaseholder chased the landlord’s contractor for a response as she had not heard from it after their discussion on 16 September 2020, where it said it would review the repairs that she raised and that it would advise her once it had contacted her tenant.
A note on the landlord’s system dated 19 September 2020, explained there had been little progress due to the pandemic and the leaseholder had asked the contractors to stop working because of COVID-19. It also said it was proving difficult to get materials.
The landlord’s contractor wrote to the leaseholder on 24 September 2020 and said it had spoken to its subcontractor a window specialist, on 23 September 2020, and it had advised that it would be calling the leaseholder to update her. The landlord’s contractor asked the leaseholder to let it know if this did not happen.
Between 2 and 14 October 2020, discussions continued between all three parties. There had also been no contact from the subcontractor, as advised by the contractor on 24 September 2020. The leaseholder reported that there had been further damage to her property. She wanted temporary fixes to prevent rainwater from entering her property and expressed her intentions to take the matter to the Ombudsman. Additionally, she sought updates on price estimates and time frames for unresolved issues.
The subcontractor contacted the leaseholder on 7 October 2020. On the same day, the leaseholder reported another leak to the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction at how it was dealing with things. The landlord contacted the leaseholder the following day, during the conversation, the leaseholder asked for her complaint to be escalated. She asked for this to be confirmed on 14 October 2020. The subcontractor visited the leaseholder’s property on 15 October 2020 and her new windows were ordered after this.
On 3 December 2020, the landlord’s contractor received a delivery date of 25 January 2021, provided by its subcontractor for delivery of the windows due to extended lead times by its supplier. Following a three-month gap in communication, the landlord’s contractor updated the leaseholder on 6 January 2021, on the dates for delivery and installation of her doors and windows, and when the making good decorations would take place. Following this the leaseholder contacted the contractor for an update a few days later. It responded on the same day and informed her of a delay on the delivery from its supplier and apologised. Both agreed on 8 February 2021 for the works to take place, and the contractor confirmed it had told its supplier to work to this date.
On 15 February 2021, the leaseholder reported that the subcontractor had cancelled on three occasions; the third occasion was because they had noticed a defect in the door requiring fixing. She said had rearranged meetings and got assistance with childcare to be available to attend the appointments, and they had cancelled. She expressed her frustration and again asked for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the process. The contractor responded on 17 February 2021, and apologised to the leaseholder on behalf of its subcontractor and confirmed the appointment had been rearranged with her. It also said it would arrange to attend to identify any further making good required.
On 20 February 2021, the leaseholder contacted the landlord and contractor and explained the subcontractor had attended and left within minutes as the door had been incorrectly measured and did not fit. She expressed her dissatisfaction and reiterated she wanted her complaint escalated. She also informed the landlord that there had been another leak in the bathroom.
The landlord’s contractor contacted the leaseholder and apologised two days later. It said it would investigate the leak and provide the leaseholder with its next steps. The following day, the contractor contacted the leaseholder and explained the subcontractor had advised it that there had been a measuring error and a remeasure; new order, manufacture and installation were required, which would take 14 to 16 weeks. It provided an alternative of UPVC which reduced the times to 7 to 8 weeks. It queried the leaseholder’s initial thought on the options, and said it considered going with an alternative approved installer, or the supplier themselves although this would not change timescales.
On 24 February 2021, the leaseholder chased an update from the contractor and landlord. She raised questions about timescales and materials, said her property had damp issues all over, and reported mould on every window. She requested that all the doors in the property be changed. The contractor responded on the same day and updated her. It also said it would review the water damage/ potential leak to the bathroom at the same time. The contractor informed the leaseholder that it had changed suppliers on 24 February 2021 to reduce the lead times for the windows. Following her approval, the new supplier then attended the leaseholder’s property on 26 February 2021.
Between 9 and 31 March 2021, there were communications between the leaseholder and contractor. The leaseholder chased progress on the repair work and her complaint. On 10 March 2021, the contractor informed her it was waiting for colour confirmation and lead times. The next day, the contractor revealed to the landlord that the windows had been improperly measured, increasing the lead times from four weeks to potentially 11 weeks. The contractor was unwilling to accept this until all options were considered. After examining the windows, the contractor provided its opinion and suggested that not all of them needed replacement; some required service and fixing due to surface water damage and mould growth.
The following day, the leaseholder contacted the contractor about further property damage caused by rain and requested an urgent solution. The contractor explained to the leaseholder the following day that the only available windows with a three-week lead time were in the wrong colour and did not meet building and planning requirements. Other options required further surveys. The leaseholder expressed frustration with the landlord’s window supplier due to the incorrect measurements which she believed led to 18 weeks being wasted. She described the damage to her property due to the leak. On 31 March 2021, the leaseholder requested the contractor contact her supplier as it could deliver the replacements at a shorter lead time. On the same day, the landlord asked the contractor to ensure an update was provided for the week commencing 5 April 2021.
The leaseholder also chased progress of her complaint with the landlord on 15 and 22 March 2021 and received no response.
The leaseholder reported more issues in the property to the contractor on 2 April 2021. She had noticed a “huge” crack in the living room wall, damp in the ceiling, and water damage to the second bedroom. The contractor responded on 6 April 2021 and said the issues could be looked at whilst it was at the property making good, following the work on the windows. It also asked for a response from the leaseholder about her supplier’s quotes. The leaseholder provided the contractor with the quotation the following day. She advised that her contractor would take approximately four to five weeks to install and fit the windows. The landlord’s contractor asked for the quote on letter headed paper.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 9 April 2021 and updated it by providing the email trail of communication between it, the leaseholder, and her contractor. Following conversations between the two contractors between 9 April 2021 and 15 April 2021, it was identified that the leaseholder’s contractor could not assist with the windows. It was agreed by the leaseholder that the contractor’s supplier was best placed to provide the windows on 20 April 2021.
The leaseholder chased the landlord and contractor on 25 April 2021, asking for any updates and querying what the next steps were. On 27 April 2021, the contractor responded and said it had asked its supplier to place the required order and explained that the landlord did not intend to replace the remaining windows, such as those in the bedrooms and bathroom. However, it had offered to arrange for them to be serviced and overhauled as part of the work.
On 5 May 2021, the contractor confirmed that the order for the replacement door set for the balcony had been placed, and there was a 12-week lead time, but its supplier would be pushing the manufacturer to reduce this if it could. The leaseholder responded on the same day and confirmed that this was fine.
There was then a communication gap of over a month, and on 24 June 2021, the contractor explained to the leaseholder that its supplier had successfully reduced the lead times. It then provided a suggested schedule of work. This was then agreed on 25 June 2021.
The works in the leaseholder’s property then began on 7 July 2021. The leaseholder’s tenant had contacted her to say the operatives were not at the property at the agreed time. The contractor responded and explained the subcontractors were there and awaiting a delivery. Between 7 July 2021 and 12 July 2021, the leaseholder and contractor conversed. The subcontractors had caused damage to the internal wall and plaster during the window fitting. The contractor enquired about making the damage good. She also said she wanted a single team to complete the rest of the required works.
The contractor responded to this and said that it could offer attendance by a contractor on the morning of 12 July 2021 to make good the damage around the windows if she liked. Alternatively, it could bring it into the “full repair schedule” if the tenant could wait a little bit longer to get everything done. On the same day, the leaseholder responded and stated she preferred a complete inspection and detailed report of the outstanding works and the timeframe required to get this addressed. The contractor responded and said it would provide a repair schedule for her review. The work involved would mean multiple visits, but these could be planned and communicated to the tenant.
On 14 July 2021, the landlord provided its stage two response to the leaseholder. The landlord said it had spoken to the relevant staff and read the correspondence and other available documentation on file. It apologised that she remained dissatisfied that it was unable to resolve the issue satisfactorily. It:
1. Said it had asked its contractor for a timeline of events from the date of the complaint, and it had regular communication with the leaseholder to ensure it resolved the works as quickly as possible.
2. It confirmed the windows were replaced on 7 July 2021; however, some damage was caused to the plaster reveals during the removal, and the contractor would arrange to either repair the revels or replace them entirely. This would be done before or during the remedial and concluding decorative works.
3. Explained it was mindful she said the issue had been ongoing for several years, but it dealt with complaints on a case-by-case basis, and if she had raised formal complaints in the past, then there would have been proportionate redress at the time. It also expected complaints to be made within six months of the issue. Therefore, it would be unable to account for the eight years the leak had been an issue, as it would be deemed historical, and a complaint should have been made when she became aware of it.
4. Said her complaint was logged on 19 September 2019, and it had taken an unreasonable amount of time to reach a conclusion on the outcome. As such, it upheld her complaint for the length of time of resolution and the inconvenience that had been caused to her during the time.
5. Detailed, it was taking steps to review how it dealt with these types of repair issues, particularly due to the high level of inconvenience it caused and the disruption to her living conditions.
6. Explained, as per its telephone conversations with the leaseholder, it was sincerely sorry for all the delays and the inconvenience this had on her and her tenants and that it appreciated the time she spent in bringing the issue to its attention. It offered the leaseholder:
  1. £240 for the length of time to resolve the complaint.
  2. £100 for communication service failure.
  3. £150 for stress and inconvenience.
The leaseholder responded to the landlord on 28 July 2021. She explained her stage two complaint was raised in September 2020, and it took the landlord ten months to respond. She said:
1. This was outside of their timescales, and she felt ignored by the landlord as she sent multiple emails asking for updates with no response or update.
2. A latent defect in the roof was first identified about nine years previously. This was the same latent defect that was not addressed correctly, which resurfaced again in September 2019.
3. She appreciated the level of detail in providing her with dates of actions taken, but each of the actions meant she had to travel on multiple occasions from her home to the property to give access to the landlord’s teams to measure a total of five times. This caused inconvenience to her tenants, and she had to send multiple follow-up emails during her working day. She explained her tenant had been away for six months due to COVID, and she had to provide access during this time and could provide dates and timelines of full and half days taken off work during the last two years since it refused to take the rest of the nine years into account.
4. She has advised the doors had to be a certain colour and scheme to fit the aesthetics of the building. However, the landlord should have taken the same consideration internally, as the new door ordered was a different colour PVC, and all other windows were a timber frame.
5. There had been further leaks in the property, coming from her bathroom, which the contractor was also addressing. She had several plumbers come into the property without notice or masks at the peak of COVID. The leaks in the bathroom had damaged it completely. The leaseholder queried, who would address the leak, and if she would have to go through a new process about this.
6. The block of flats had not been looked after, and the issue was not a single leak but multiple leaks, causing damage to multiple properties in the block.
7. She would like the landlord to:
  1. Consider compensation of at least £1,500.
  2. Provide clarification on when the damage to the property due to the roof leak would be addressed, with dates and timelines.
  3. As the existing windows were made with timber, clarify how the mismatch in the flat windows of timber and ordered UPVC would be addressed and why timber was not used if she waited for 12 weeks.
  4. Finally, explain who and how it would address the leak from the soil pipe causing a leak in her bathroom and damaging the floor, walls, and sealants, when this would be addressed, and the damage fixed.
There was then a 52-day communication gap between the parties. On 18 September 2021, the leaseholder emailed the landlord and expressed disappointment as she believed the landlord did nothing despite all the assurance that it would address her complaint. She said it had failed to abide by its stage two complaint protocols and took ten months to provide a stage two response. She stated there had been no progress, and her property remained damaged; no further works had been conducted, despite all the landlord’s “false promises”. She said nine years on, it was the same “dilemma” with the landlord not providing a response or any action. She also stated the stress and effect on her mental health had been enormous. She said the landlord had put her tenant’s life and her own through much pain and worry, and she would not allow this to continue.
There were further discussions between the leaseholder and the landlord’s contractors between 20 September 2021 and 24 September 2021 about the completion of the outstanding work in her property.
The leaseholder contacted the Ombudsman on 13 December 2021, and said she had not received a response to her email of 28 July 2021 after four months.
This Service contacted the landlord on 19 June 2023 and requested any further communication and repair records about the leaseholder’s complaint which had not been previously provided. As of the date of this investigation, no response has been received.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted there is a long history of leaks into the leaseholder’s property; this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports from August 2019 onwards, which were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint response. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords on time so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are live and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Assessment

Handling of reports of leaks into the leaseholder’s property which led to internal damage.

The landlord acted in accordance with its responsibilities under the lease as it looked to fix the issue with the roof. Once communication broke down with the developer over the latent defect, it acted positively and employed a specialist contractor to deal with the issue. However, the leaseholder reported that the leaks continued.
The leaseholder stated the damage to her property was due to the reported leaks from the roof. The timeline of events the landlord provided shows that the water ingress into the leaseholder’s property originated from a neighbour’s balcony, not the roof. Based on this, the Ombudsman cannot determine if leaks from the roof resulted in damage to the leaseholder’s property. This is because no evidence has been provided to this Service that the leaks from the roof caused the damage to the leaseholder’s property.
Despite the lease and the landlord’s policy stating the leaseholder is responsible for the repairs to her property, from the evidence, it appears that the landlord has accepted and taken responsibility for the repairs. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to provide evidence of inspection and survey reports of the roof to determine if the latest reported leaks from the roof did in fact cause the damage to the leaseholder’s property, and the necessary repairs to rectify the situation. It has not done so, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has not acted appropriately.
What is however clear, is that 34 months had elapsed, from the point the leaseholder reported the damage to her property in her complaint, and the landlord beginning the works it planned to complete. There is also no evidence that it provided the leaseholder with an initial action plan or timeline for the completion of the works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable. However, the Ombudsman understands that COVID-19 played a part in the delays. It led to the leaseholder’s requested work to the property being put on hold due to the tenant’s request, and it also caused issues with supply of materials.
When the leaseholder originally raised her complaint, the landlord communicated with her however, the landlord’s communications with the leaseholder then stopped and became between her and contractor. The evidence provided shows that the landlord last communicated with the leaseholder, prior to the stage two response on 7 October 2020. After this date, the leaseholder continued reporting further issues about the property and contractors to the landlord, as well as seek updates from it and received no response.
The evidence shows, the landlord did not communicate with the leaseholder after 7 October 2020 for nine months, until it provided its response, 1 year and 10 months after she raised her complaint, despite her numerous communications with it. From the evidence, the leaseholder emailed the landlord a total of seven times during this period and received no response. For majority of the time, it left its contractor to communicate solely with the leaseholder during this period. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s failure to communicate with the leaseholder shows a lack of empathy for her. It is a failure to recognise the issue’s impact on the leaseholder and her tenant. This would have added to the leaseholder’s frustration as it would have potentially eased the leaseholder’s mind to see the landlord taking an interest in the matter. The landlord’s poor communication would have added to her distress and frustration.
The leaseholder, on several occasions, had to take time and chase the progress of her repairs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have proactively provided the leaseholder with updates. On two occasions, she reported issues with the subcontractors. The contractor acknowledged and apologised to the leaseholder. However, there was no response from the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable. The landlord should have taken oversight of the matter, identified what went wrong, and how it was best placed to assist the leaseholder with rectifying the problems. Further, although the subcontractor’s actions were not the landlord’s fault, the landlord is responsible for their actions as they were acting on its behalf, as such it should have taken ownership of the situation, acknowledged the leaseholder’s report and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the leaseholder. The lack of communication from the landlord around this issue would have left the leaseholder distressed as it may have suggested a lack of interest in the matter and contributed to the leaseholder’s loss of faith in the landlord.
Further, when the delays around the provision of the leaseholder’s windows were reported, there is no evidence that the landlord took proactive steps to consider any alternatives to help reduce lead times. Whilst the landlord is entitled to delegate matters to contractors, it could have taken steps to assist, such as contacting other suppliers. However, the leaseholder had to take the initiative to try and resolve the issue, where there was no expectation on her to do so. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s inaction shows that it was not customer focused. This led to the leaseholder having to take time and go through the trouble of trying to procure the windows herself to reduce the damage to her property, caused by a problem which was outside of her control, and ultimately the responsibility of the landlord to have ensured it was appropriately rectified. The leaseholder appears to have acted due to her frustration at the prolonged period the repairs had been ongoing. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable.
This Service would expect the landlord to ensure its contractor and its subcontractor were adhering to service standards throughout the repairs process, and if they were not, discuss this with them to bring them in line with best practice. The Ombudsman would also have expected to see the landlord asking for regular updates from its contractors to keep informed of the progress of the repairs.
There was a seven-month gap between March 2020 and October 2020, in which the landlord did not communicate with the leaseholder from the evidence provided. During this period, the leaseholder’s tenant had identified not being comfortable with works taking place due to COVID-19. There was also a three-month gap between October 2020 and January 2021, where the evidence shows a lack of communication with the leaseholder. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unacceptable. As the repairs were ongoing, the landlord should have been communicating with its contractor, seeking updates, and providing them to the leaseholder during these times as a matter of courtesy and best practice. The landlord should also have been seeking updates from the leaseholder, to identify the first opportunity it would be able to begin the repairs, there is no evidence it this. The lack of information from the landlord would have left the leaseholder frustrated and inconvenienced as she had to spend time chasing the updates.
Further, the landlord was aware of shortages of materials in September 2020, but did not notify the leaseholder of this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have used this opportunity to manage the leaseholder’s expectations by informing her that the shortages could lead to delays in completing the work. It could also have used this opportunity to anticipate the potential delays and ensure it got ahead of the repairs by ordering the relevant parts well ahead of time to avoid unnecessary delays to the repair works and unmatching parts, as was the case here.
In summary, there have been failings by the landlord. It did not provide evidence of having inspected the leaseholder’s property to ascertain whether the leaks in the property were from the roof. It did not acknowledge the leaseholder’s further reports about leaks to her property. It did not keep the leaseholder updated about repairs, even when she asked. It did not proactively address material shortages that could affect the planned repairs several months before issues arose. There was a 34-month delay between the leaseholder raising her complaint and the works beginning. However, COVID-19 also had an impact on the delays. Whilst this Service acknowledges that COVID-19 contributed to the delay, the overall time taken to complete the repairs was unreasonable. The landlord did not provide the leaseholder with an action plan or timelines around the repairs. Whilst material shortages added to the delay, there were also issues caused by the landlord’s subcontractors such as incorrect measurements being taken. It failed to seek regular updates from its contractors about the repairs. It failed to monitor the progress of her repairs appropriately and did not communicate with her for substantial periods. This caused issues of frustration, distress, and inconvenience to the leaseholder. Based on this, there was maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint Handling

Although the landlord’s complaints policy provides no timeframes for responses to complaints, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was an unreasonable delay in providing the leaseholder with a response to her complaint. Given the long history associated with the leaks, the failure to provide a prompt response shows the landlord failed to account for the issue’s impact on the leaseholder appropriately. This would have left the leaseholder feeling frustrated and inconvenienced at having to chase responses numerous times, from raising her complaint to receiving a response 22 months later. This is especially unreasonable as she had expressed to the landlord that she wanted to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman, and the landlord’s failure to respond potentially hindered the leaseholder’s ability to do so. The lack of timelines provided within the policy leaves the landlord unaccountable for late responses, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable.
Following her initial complaint, the leaseholder chased the landlord after 14 days as she had yet to receive a response, or any acknowledgement, from the landlord, which the landlord should have sent to the leaseholder on 3 September 2019. It then acknowledged the complaint twelve working days late. This is outside of the timescales provided within its policy. It only acted upon the leaseholder’s complaint following her chasing it for a response. There is also no evidence provided that it contacted her within the one to two working days stated, in its policy after acknowledging the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable and inconvenienced the leaseholder, as she had to take the time and trouble to follow up with the landlord, and prompt it to deal with the complaint.
The stage one response was then outstanding for thirteen months from the date of the leaseholder’s complaint to the date of her first request for escalation to stage two. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is significantly late and an unreasonable amount of time to leave the leaseholder waiting for an initial response to her complaint. There is also no evidence that the landlord provided any updates or reasons to the leaseholder about why the response remained outstanding for such a long time. It would have been best practice to inform her if any issues delayed it, providing her with a response. The failure to do so would have added to the leaseholder’s frustration with the landlord, as she was left not knowing what was happening with her complaint. This would have also contributed to the distress she explained to the landlord that she had suffered.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, as the landlord did not provide the leaseholder with a stage one response, she was denied a two-stage complaints process in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord missed an opportunity to address the substantive issues by not providing a stage one response. Providing a formal stage one response is a fundamental aspect of complaint handling. At this stage, the landlord has an opportunity to demonstrate it has heard and understood the leaseholder’s concerns and potentially put things right. Without a stage one response, there was nothing for the landlord to review at stage two. Although the landlord explained that the leaseholder escalated before it provided its stage one response, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it had sufficient time and opportunity to provide her with a stage one response but failed to do so. It could have provided the response to the leaseholder at the point of her escalation.
Further, the leaseholder had to chase the landlord for four months to receive an acknowledgement that the landlord had escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this shows poor customer service, a lack of clarity and poor communication by the landlord. The failure to inform her promptly, would have been distressing to the leaseholder and caused her inconvenience as she had to chase the landlord for an unreasonable amount of time before receiving confirmation.
Following the leaseholder’s request for escalation to stage two, the landlord took a further nine months to respond. The leaseholder was left chasing the landlord for updates by email, and it did not respond to her requests. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable and added to the detriment suffered by the leaseholder. It caused her continued frustration and inconvenience, as she had to take the time and trouble to repeatedly chase the landlord for a response for the nine months it took to respond. The lack of updates left her without information on the progress of her complaint, and she had expressed a wish to escalate to the Ombudsman. Its inaction unnecessarily prolonged the leaseholder’s ability to resolve her complaint.
The Ombudsman established its complaint handling code in July 2020, three months before the leaseholder requested escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. As such the landlord should have been aware of the 20-working day timeframe for the provision of a stage two response within the code. By providing its response significantly outside of this timeframe, the landlord failed to abide by the complaint handling code. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable.
When the landlord did respond, it failed to address the leaseholder’s complaint properly. It acknowledged the matter had been going on for a long time, said the required works were completed, and upheld her complaint. It however failed to explain what works it had completed to address the persistent leaks, which was what the leaseholder had complained about. It did not provide any of the information requested, nor did it respond to its plans to address the repairs to the roof. It provided a vague response and said it would be reviewing how it would be dealing with such repairs. It is unclear if the landlord meant how it dealt with repairs to the roof, or to the leaseholder’s property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not take a customer-focused approach in its complaints handling.
The landlord acknowledged there were delays in its complaint-handling process and offered the leaseholder compensation. Despite this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion this did not go far enough to address the delay to the leaseholder with its complaint handling. The delay, lack of communication and updates, and failure to request extensions and explain reasons for its delays caused significant leaseholder frustration. This saw her having to take the time to chase responses around responses at both stages of her complaint.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s complaint 14 working days late outside its policy guidelines. There were significant delays around the provision of the stage one response (which it eventually never provided) and the stage two response. In total, the leaseholder had to wait a total of 22 months and 14 days for a response to her complaint. The landlord did not provide her with any explanations for the delays. She was left chasing updates without response from the landlord. This left her frustrated, distressed, and inconvenienced. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable and shows significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling and communication with the leaseholder around her complaint. This amounts to severe maladministration by the landlord with its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of leaks into the leaseholder’s property which led to internal damage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was not proactive in its handling of the leaseholder’s repairs. It left everything to its contractor to deal with and failed to communicate with the leaseholder on several occasions when she attempted to communicate with it directly. It took 34-months to begin works to address the damage to the leaseholder’s property following her complaint in 2019. Whilst there were material shortages which added to delays, its subcontractor’s failings also added considerably to the delays and at one stage saw the leaseholder trying to source needed items herself. It failed to monitor the progress of her repairs appropriately and did not communicate with her for substantial periods of time.
The length of time taken by the landlord to provide the leaseholder with a response to her complaint was unreasonable. It failed to abide by the timeframes it provided within its complaints policy for acknowledgement of her complaint. It also failed to communicate with her when she sought updates about her complaint and delayed her ability to escalate to the Ombudsman.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the leaseholder compensation in the sum of £1490 consisting of:
  1. £490 previously offered in its stage two response.
  2. £350 for the leaseholder’s time, inconvenience, distress, and frustration in relation to the delays and handling of repairs.
  3. £400 for the lack of updates and delays in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. £250 for the distress, inconvenience, and frustration to the leaseholder due to the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Provide the leaseholder a written apology for the delays and its complaint handling failure.
3. Review any outstanding repairs to the leaseholder’s property and provide a schedule of repairs with dates for proposed completion to the leaseholder.
4. Provide the leaseholder with answers to the questions raised and information requested about the roof during her original complaint.
5. Include its stage one and two response timescales within its complaints policy.
6. Within six weeks, review this case, identify learning points, and provide an action plan to the Ombudsman on how the landlord will avoid these failings in the future, especially around monitoring repairs and communicating with residents.
7. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider completing an inspection of the leaseholder’s property and provide the leaseholder with a remedy, and where not available an explanation of why it is unable to remedy any damage to her property which were caused by the leaks.