East End Homes Limited (202121527)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121527

East End Homes Limited

3 May 2022

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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Water ingress to the front of the property via the roof.
   2. Water ingress to the rear of the property via a window.

Background

2. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a three-bedroom maisonette on the second and third floor of a low-level block, owned on a leasehold landlord. The resident has reported physical & mental health issues.
3. The resident complained on 13 August 2021 that he was still waiting for his windows to be checked, following his reports of rainwater ingress into the bedroom and living room of the property which he made in April 2021. He was planning to move to sheltered accommodation due to health issues and needed to claim for damage to the property and his belongings. He further stated that the leak at the front of the building, reported in January 2021, had not been fixed. He had been told by the insurers that they only dealt with buildings claims, not contents. The scaffolding was late, and no work had been started.
4. In its response to the complaint, on 27 August 2021, the landlord said that the guttering at the rear would be replaced. There was a delay in the scaffolding being erected on 25 August 2021, for which apologies were given and the matter was raised at a Performance Review meeting.  An insurance form for damaged goods was sent to the resident. 
5. The landlord’s panel found that although the blocked gutter was the cause of water getting behind the soffit, the broken seal on the window had let the water in. The landlord apologised for the delay in the repair but did not believe that this caused more damage to the property by not being carried out sooner.  The landlord had sought legal advice and the windows were the responsibility of the leaseholder. Work to the front was delayed due to access issues with the neighbour in the flat below and a temporary repair could not be made from the inside, as other residents had used the loft space for storage.
6. The resident said that both repairs had been completed when he approached this Service in December 2021. He is unhappy that no compensation was awarded for the distress and anxiety caused by the delay in repairing the leaks and for his furniture and interior decoration that was damaged.

Assessment and findings

Front of property/roof

7. Page five of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, ‘repair responsibilities’ at section 1.1 says the landlord is responsible for repairs of the roof. The policy goes on to say that routine repairs for response within 28 days include minor repairs to windows and roofs and repairs to walls and tiles.
8. The landlord recorded a leak into the resident’s front bedroom in April 2021 and that a technical officer had inspected and said scaffolding would be required, however the job was not completed. The resident then reported flooding into a rear bedroom window on 2 August 2021, the landlord attended the next day and arranged for a technical officer to visit on 6 August, which was rearranged by the resident to 9 August 2021. The landlord initially said the water was leaking due to a problem with the guttering. After further rain, the landlord made a temporary repair on 8 August 2021 and recommended the rubbers be changed on both windows. 
9. The landlord inspected the roof in April 2021 and confirmed that further investigation was required but there is no evidence that this was followed up prior to the resident raising the issue in August 2021. This indicates a service failure and poor processes as the repair was not shown as completed and no progress was recorded before the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 27 August 2021.
10. Although the landlord said a repair to the roof was required and an order for a cherry picker had been raised on 10 August 2021, there was no further movement until 24 September 2021 when the landlord noted that a quote was approved for the front of the property but due to access problems, scaffolding could not be erected until November 2021.
11. The resident escalated the complaint on 1 September 2021 as the leak at the front of the building reported in January 2021 had not been fixed, and he had been told by the insurers that they only dealt with buildings claims, not contents. The scaffolding was late, and no work had been started. The resident made several further enquiries to the landlord as the insurers would not deal with a contents claim. Work at the rear of the property was carried out 6-9 September 2021 and scaffolding was removed on 22 September 2021. The landlord contacted the resident the same day to arrange the panel hearing which took place 26 October 2021.
12. In the meantime, the stage two complaint panel had taken place and the stage two response, issued on 4 November 2021, explained that the leak at the front had not been considered as being as serious and not treated with the same urgency as the other leak. The minutes of the meeting indicated that the resident had reported damage to the floorboards and wall from this leak, although not nearly on the same scale as the leak through the window. The landlord said that it had not been safe to use the cherry picker to repair the roof, or to access it from the inside on health and safety grounds due to the items stored inside the attic.
13. Whilst the access problems were somewhat beyond the landlord’s control, there was a long delay between the issue being brought to the landlord’s attention again in August 2021 and the eventual repair. The stage two response said that other residents would be told not to store items in the attic space, but no apology was given in respect of the delay in the roof repair. 
14. The delay in the roof repair was excessive, and certainly beyond the 28 days which are given in the landlord’s repair policy for repairs to a roof. It is therefore reasonable that compensation be awarded in respect of this repair and should have been considered by the landlord during the complaints process. The landlord’s compensation policy, Section 3.4, covers discretionary payments where processes have not been followed, and says these will be based on Housing Ombudsman remedies. Compensation will be considered for the overall repair issues below.

Rear of property/window

15. The landlord’s repair policy at Section 1.2 says gutters and external pipes are the responsibility of the landlord.  Section 1.3 says windowsills, catches and frames are the responsibility of the landlord. However, the landlord’s stage two complaint response said that legal advice had been sought and that windows were the responsibility of the leaseholder. There has been no documentary evidence provided to this Service to show where it is stated that the resident is responsible, and no lease agreement has been supplied.
16. It would have avoided unnecessary distress for the resident if evidence of his liability for the repair had been provided at an early stage, as the resident had been asking the landlord throughout for an inspection by a window engineer. In addition, the landlord had repaired the window when it would not open on 21 June 2021, which would reasonably lead the resident to conclude that the landlord was responsible for the windows.
17. The landlord did accept responsibility for the broken guttering and acted to arrange a temporary repair, albeit using the resident’s own duct tape and black bags. There was a delay in the repair being completed, largely it would seem, due to problems with the scaffolding being erected. This delay was beyond the landlord’s stated repair time even for routine repairs. The landlord apologised for this in the stage two complaint response but did not uphold the complaint or make an offer of compensation. The landlord said that the leak occurred because of the windows, although there was no discussion of whether the water would have breached the window seals had the gutter not been broken. 
18. The resident described the stress of waiting for further heavy rain and that he had to pay people to move his furniture for him away from the flooded room, during the period he was waiting for someone to inspect the window. The resident’s local councillor, who was present at the panel meeting, confirmed that he had seen the resident effectively living in a single room.
19. The landlord’s compensation policy says at section 3.7 that compensation will not be considered in respect of third party/public liability claims, for which the landlord has in place insurance policies. It is correct then that any damage caused to the resident’s belongings be considered by the landlord’s insurers, rather than via the complaints process and compensation policy. It will also be for the insurer to decide whether the landlord was liable to pay any damages to the resident for the impact of the issues on him as this is based on any finding of responsibility. What this Service has considered in the circumstances is regarding delays by the landlord in responding to the resident’s reports and taking reasonable action within its requisite timescales, particularly where it is clear that it has a responsibility to do so.
20. The stage one complaint directed the resident to make an insurance claim, but the resident was advised the insurer did not cover contents. It is not specified if this was the block insurance the resident contributes towards. Details of an alternative insurance company was later provided to the resident, but again he said he had been told they did not cover contents. The resident was directed to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau who instructed him to claim against the landlord’s insurers. There is no indication that this has yet been done.
21. The resident has health problems and is looking to sell his property to move into sheltered accommodation. It does not appear from the evidence provided that the landlord supported the resident at this time, in view of his vulnerability and the particular problems the delay in the repair would cause. Although it is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord’s expert operatives found any parts of the property to be uninhabitable.
22. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be clear about how the resident should make a claim against the landlord’s insurers for damage caused by the water ingress, and to liaise and signpost as appropriate. This is not to say that any claim would be successful, but that it is for the insurers to decide.
23. The landlord delayed in the repair, which it acknowledged but did not compensate for. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it follows the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This guidance recommends a sum of between £50 and £250 in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident including distress, time and trouble, and disappointment. In this instance, considering the delayed repair to the roof and the guttering, the lack of clarity around who was responsible for the window repair and the confusion around the insurers, the maximum of £250 would seem appropriate.
24. In addition, it would be fair in all the circumstances if the landlord would provide guidance to the resident on the correct insurers to make a claim for the damaged items, as well as evidence of his responsibility for the repair of the windows.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the repair to the front of the property via the roof.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the repair to the rear of the property via the window. 

Orders

26. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £250 to reflect the delay in the front/roof repair being completed and the delays and poor communication in respect of the rear/window leak.  
    2. Provide the resident with evidence that the leaseholder is responsible for the window repair.
    3. Contact its insurers to assist the resident in making a claim for his belongings damaged by water ingress.
    4. Provide this Service with evidence of having complied with the orders in this case.