Anchor Hanover Group (202008755)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008755

Anchor Hanover Group

25 March 2021


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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his reports of leaks to the flat roof and dormer window.
  2. This Service will also consider the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property with his wife in accordance with an assured non-shorthold tenancy agreement.

Policies and Procedures

  1. In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement and tenant handbook, the landlord is obliged to keep the outside and main structure of residents homes in good repair and decorative order.
  2. If residents’ complaints cannot be resolved immediately, they will be investigated at stage one before a response is provided within 14 calendar days (unless the resident has been advised otherwise). If residents remain dissatisfied, they may request a review under stage two. The landlord’s policy provides for review outcomes to also be provided within 14 days.
  3. Its policy provides for the consideration of compensation in circumstances where it has failed to provide a service in line with published standards.

Summary of events

  1. The resident states that he has been reporting a leak in the flat roof and dormer window since he moved into the property in 2016. He states that the landlord has misunderstood the nature of the leaks and wasted money in not repairing them properly, instead “sometimes creating even more damage and upheaval.”
  2. This Service has seen a report from a roofing company dated 23 September 2019 which states that there had been “inadequate roof repairs carried out in the past and water ingress is still finding its way into the building at the front and back.” It recommended repairs to the felt under the tiles at the back of the property and repairs to the leaking dormer window at the front.
  3. The resident reports that repairs were carried out to the leak from the dormer window in October 2019.
  4. Though a copy of the report has not been provided, internal landlord communication of 5 February 2020 refers to the roofers stating that there would need to be a new roof fitted as it didn’t have the correct tiling. It is not clear why, but the roof was not replaced.
  5. The resident submitted a complaint on 23 March regarding the landlord’s handling of the repairs. He wrote:
    1. The landlord had “missed the point” with the repairs – the same leak had recurred for nearly four years without adequate rectification;
    2. He didn’t want compensation – he was “not out of pocket… out of patience but not money,” but considered an ex-gratia payment would be appropriate; and
    3. He assumed that workmen had been paid for their poor work and asked to know whether the landlord had taken any action in seeking to be refunded.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 March. There was then a stream of communication that followed; the resident repeated that the landlord had not understood the main point of his complaint and sought to clarify this. In an email of 6 April, the landlord sought to reassure him that it did understand the points made in his complaint and was hopeful that it had found a long-term solution to the leaks.
  7. The resident reported a damp patch on the ceiling after rain had fallen on 17 April. The same day the landlord arranged for contractors to inspect the leak.
  8. On 16 June the resident again reported a leak.
  9. According to internal landlord correspondence of 23 June, a stage one response was delivered to the resident verbally only, but it is not clear when. More verbal communication followed and the landlord records refer to contact being made regarding compensation (correspondence pertaining to which has not been seen by this Service). The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord escalated the complaint on 23 June.
  10. The landlord sent its final response on 30 June 2020. It stated that:
    1. It was sorry the residents had experienced difficulties in relation to the repair;
    2. Records showed that several localised repairs had been carried out over the years but not in relation to the same issue and in circumstances of weather changes;
    3. The surveyors were confident that works proposed as a result of the late 2019/ 2020 heavy rainfall would resolve the ongoing water ingress. Extensive works had been carried out to achieve this. These had been post inspected via photographs in light of the Coronavirus restrictions; and
    4. The cost of the works was confidential commercial information and would not be shared with the residents.
  11. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response of 30 June and wrote on 12 July seeking clarification on a few points. The Senior Repairs Surveyor responded to the resident on 11 August. He stated:
    1. The work costs were not payable by residents and did not have any impact on rental or service charges;
    2. Repair works had been carried out as and when they became necessary in response to localised issues;
    3. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure was now completed but the resident had the option of referring the complaint to this Service via a Designated Person.
  12. On 22 September, the resident contacted his local MP for assistance in escalating his complaint.
  13. The resident reported a leak on 21 October and again on 24 December, despite roofers having attended two weeks prior to this.
  14. The landlord contacted the resident on 30 December to address the volume of correspondence being received from him. It stated that correspondence regarding matters previously addressed would not be responded to but would be placed on file. It stated it had responded in full to his complaint regarding the roof and outlined his options for escalation to external review.
  15. The resident responded on 5 January 2021 stating that the window was still leaking and the scaffolding still in place.
  16. On 19 January, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had agreed to replace the roof during the current financial year as a result of the number of repairs which had been undertaken.
  17. On 8 February the resident reported that roofers had attended earlier that day to carry out repairs to the dormer window.
  18. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He would like for the landlord to apologise to all tenants for the inconvenience and money spent, and for it to use local tradespeople in the repair works.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs

  1. The landlord does not dispute its repairing obligations. The resident states that he has been reporting leaks since he moved in in 2016. The information provided shows that the landlord did take action to seek to repair the leaks when the resident reported them on a number of occasions (including the six occasions specifically referred to in this report). The parties appear to disagree on the source of the leaks – the resident is of the view that the same issue has recurred as a result of inadequate repair; the landlord is of the view that the issues have been distinct and rectified each time. There is no documentary evidence supporting either position. Whatever the position, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek to resolve the leaks in a cost-effective way – via effective repairs as opposed to replacement – but at a certain point it became reasonable and appropriate for it to consider replacement as the most cost-effective way to resolve the leaks, as it was obliged to do. This would most likely have avoided the need for the resident to continue to make reports of, and experience, leaks as he did.
  2. The landlord was put on notice that a new roof would be suitable in February 2020 due to a lack of appropriate tiling. It appears that the landlord went ahead with repairs in February 2020 in any event (it is not clear how it sourced appropriate tiling). This may have been appropriate at that time – there is no indication that roofers recommended a new roof on the basis that further repairs would be ineffective. However, it would have been appropriate to consider replacing the roof on the basis that several repairs had been required, a professional report had referred to “inadequate” repairs having been carried out in the past, and the resident continued to report leaks on a number of occasions. It was almost one year later, after several further reported leaks, that the landlord confirmed the roof would be replaced. The Ombudsman is of the view that consideration of a replacement roof should have occurred earlier.
  3. In the absence of complete repair records, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord took adequate steps to investigate the recurring issues. The landlord is reminded that good record keeping is vital to evidence the action it has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs processes are not operating effectively.
  4. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the landlord demonstrated service failure in its handling of the repairs due to its failure to resolve the leaks in a reasonable timeframe, delay in consideration of a replacement roof, and failure to maintain adequate repair records.
  5. The resident is seeking an apology to all residents for the inconvenience caused and the money spent, as well as a directive for the landlord to use local tradespeople in its repair works. As the Ombudsman’s investigation is limited to an investigation into the resident’s complaint only (and not that of other residents), it considers it appropriate that the landlord offered an apology to the resident individually for the difficulties he had experienced. It will not direct the landlord to use local tradespeople as this would be outside of its jurisdiction; landlords are entitled to make their own business decisions on the basis of relevant commercial considerations.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident submitted his formal complaint on 23 March 2020, which was acknowledged by the landlord on 27 March. It appears from landlord correspondence that the landlord provided a verbal response, though it is unclear when. No contemporaneous notes of this response have been provided. Whilst the landlord’s policy does not specify that it must provide a written response, the Ombudsman would expect one to be provided as best practice, even simply to outline the outcome verbally discussed. In the absence of either a written response or contemporaneous notes of a verbal discussion, the Ombudsman is again unable to conclude that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint. In fact, his subsequent complaint that the landlord had not understood his complaint supports this position.
  2. The three-month delay in escalating the resident’s complaint is also noted, however there is no evidence that the resident requested and was refused escalation; the parties appeared to be in discussions regarding resolution of the leak.
  3. The landlord’s stage two response was provided swiftly after escalation and sought to address the resident’s complaint comprehensively.
  4. It was however inappropriate that the landlord’s complaint response did not accurately reflect the referral process to this Service. The landlord’s follow up letter to the resident on 11 August 2020 stated that he had the right to refer only once his complaint had been referred to a designated person. This is incorrect as referrals to designated persons are not required in order for residents to refer their complaints to this Service. It is, however, noted that the landlord’s updated policy which came into force in February this year does accurately reflect the referral process. The landlord should ensure that this is correctly communicated to residents.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord demonstrated service failure in its handling of the repairs in its failure to resolve the leaks in a reasonable timeframe, delay in consideration of a replacement roof, failure to maintain adequate repair records and resulting inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. Service failure was also demonstrated in the landlord’s complaints handling in the absence of written records reflecting its stage one response, delay in escalation of the complaint and failure to accurately advise of referral to this Service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Update the resident and this Service on its plans to replace the roof within 3 months from the date of this report;
    2. Pay £300 to the resident within 28 days in compensation for the delay and inconvenience caused as a result of its handling of the repairs;
    3. Pay £25 to the resident within 28 days in compensation for its complaints handling failures; and
    4. Review, within 3 months of this report, its repairs record keeping policies and procedures to ensure that it is able to manage repairs effectively and evidence what action it has taken to meet its repairing obligations.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord carry out a review of its complaints handling processes within 2 months to ensure that complaint discussions and responses are accurately logged.