Basildon Borough Council (202341200)

Background

1. The resident’s representative reported a roof leak to the landlord on 20 October 2023, which was leaking into the kitchen. She later raised concerns about delays in progressing the repairs, difficulty contacting the landlord’s contractors, and inconsistent information about repair timescales. She said poor communication and the length of time taken to complete the repairs caused distress and frustration to both her and the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a roof leak.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure 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.

Reasons

Roof leak

6. The landlord recorded the roof leak as a ‘priority 2’ repair in line with its tenants handbook, which applies to responsive repairs that are not emergencies and should be completed within 28 days. On 30 October 2023, while the repair remained outstanding, the resident’s representative made a complaint to the landlord. She reported difficulties in contacting its repairs contractor through its phone system and expressed dissatisfaction that the repair had not been treated as an emergency.
7. This categorisation was appropriate, as the evidence shows the leak was containable when the resident reported it and did not require an emergency response. The landlord arranged for an external roofing contractor to inspect the roof on 2 November 2023. This initial attendance took place well within the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy and represented a timely response.
8. After inspecting the roof on 2 November 2023, the contractor confirmed that further and more extensive works were required. These included the removal of asbestos, the replacement of two Velux windows, and additional roofing works that required scaffolding. In its stage 1 response, issued on 9 November 2023, the landlord told the resident’s representative that it aimed to complete the repairs within 28 days. However, repair records show that the scope of the works went beyond routine repairs. Given this complexity, the landlord should have reviewed the appropriateness of the proposed timescale before confirming it and considered whether a longer or more realistic timeframe was necessary. This failure to appropriately manage expectations contributed directly to ongoing dissatisfaction when the repairs were not completed within the 28 day timescale.
9. The landlord raised the required work orders on 6 November 2023 and its contractor replaced one of the windows on 15 December 2023, but was unable to complete the remaining works until the asbestos had been removed. Although the landlord progressed the repairs, they extended well beyond the 28 day timescale it previously provided. The evidence does not show that the landlord contacted the resident or his representative to explain the delays or provide revised timescales. As a result, they had to chase updates themselves, which was unreasonable.
10. The landlord arranged for a specialist contractor to remove the asbestos, on or around 18 December 2023. It contractor then completed the remaining roof repairs shortly afterwards on 9 January 2024. The presence of asbestos was outside the landlord’s control and reasonably contributed to delays in completing the works, as did the Christmas period. Taking into account the scope and complexity of the repairs required, the overall time taken to complete the repairs was reasonable
11. However, the asbestos was identified prior the landlord issuing its stage 1 complaint response on 9 November 2023. In fact, at this point, the landlord knew the scope of all the required works. Therefore, it needed to clearly explain its impact on the repair timescale and keep the resident and his representative informed of revised timescales and progress. The evidence shows that communication at this stage was limited. As a result, the resident’s representative remained under the impression that the original 28 day timescale had not been met and that the landlord had failed to manage the repairs effectively, when in fact the landlord’s performance in delivering the repairs themselves, was reasonable.
12. In response to the reported telephone issues, the landlord covered this complaint point in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. It apologised and explained that high call volumes had caused technical problems with the phone system. It confirmed that it had raised the issue internally for investigation. As the problem related to the contractor’s call system, the landlord had limited influence over the technical cause. In the circumstances, the steps it took were reasonable. However, the stage 2 response focused mainly on communication issues and contractor behaviour. It did not address the central complaint about delays to the roof repairs. It also did not consider whether the landlord had set realistic expectations earlier, despite this being raised at escalation.
13. The resident’s representative also raised concerns that the landlord had not adequately reviewed the performance of its contractors or considered whether changes were required. Our determination is based on what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case and is limited to the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and associated complaint. It does not extend to assessing the landlord’s wider contractor management arrangements, or make findings on contractor performance beyond the specific matters investigated, and therefore does not consider any wider or systemic issues.
14. In summary, the landlord responded appropriately when the resident’s representative first reported the leak and completed the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. However, it failed to manage expectations by providing an unrealistic completion timeline in its stage 1 complaint response. Poor communication once delays became clear compounded these failures.
15. These shortcomings caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident. However, they did not materially affect the outcome of the repairs, as the landlord progressed and completed the works once the need for additional repairs was identified during the initial inspection. We therefore make a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure which did not significantly affect the overall outcome, and appropriately reflects the landlord’s failings in its handling of the reports of the roof leak.

Complaint handling

16. The landlord operates a two‑stage complaints process and issued both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within the timescales set out in its complaints policy and our complaint handling code (the Code). The policy requires residents to request escalation within 28 days. In this case, the resident’s representative requested escalation 45 days after the stage 1 response, which was outside the policy timeframe. The landlord considered the circumstances and used reasonable discretion in accepting the late escalation.
17. The resident’s representative escalated the complaint on 21 January 2024, after the repairs had been completed. She said the landlord had not met the 28 day timescale for the repair given in the stage 1 response. Escalation records show that she raised concerns about the missed deadline and explained that the resident experienced cold winter conditions while waiting for the issue to be resolved.
18. The landlord upheld the complaint in its stage 2 response on the basis of ‘miscommunication’ and ‘wrong information being provided’ by its contractor. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s representatives concerns about the 28 day repair target, which it had provided itself in its stage 1 response or its handling of the roof repairs more generally.
19. The Code requires landlords to “address all points raised in the complaint definition”, which the landlord failed to do in this instance. This represented a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint prior to our involvement. Due to this we make a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This reflects our remedies guidance for a minor failure that did not affect the overall outcome but was not acknowledged by the landlord.

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.