Greenwich Council (201914844)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914844

Greenwich Council

20 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 reports of leaks first reported in 2018.
  2. The resident has also complained about the landlord’s handing of leak reported in June 2021.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Following completion of the complaints procedure, on 4 June 2021, the resident reported another leak.  The landlord inspected on 14 June 2021 and noted damaged brickwork.  It erected scaffolding on 2 July 2021 and completed repairs, then agreed to decorate and seal the resident’s bedroom ceiling.  The landlord took meter readings over a four-month period and deemed the property to be dry as readings were low. An appointment to carry out the ceiling works was made for 7 December 2021.
  4. The resident has raised concerns with this Service about the inconvenience from the further leak.  He has raised concerns also about lack of access to the garden from the scaffolding and security concerns from the back gate being open for contractors.
  5. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. A landlord should have the chance to consider and resolve a matter complained of within its complaints procedure before this Service can assess how it dealt with the matter complained of.  Therefore, whilst the Ombudsman’s acknowledges the resident’s concerns about the further leak of 4 June 2021, the Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s handling of this leak.
  6. In line with paragraph 39(a) this investigation has focussed on the matters raised within the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure on 4 May 2021. However, events occurring since the final complaint response of 1 February 2021 have been summarised to put the resident’s complaint in its full context and to inform the orders and recommendations made in the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures / The legal context

  1. The resident’s lease confirms:
    1. the resident’s obligation to “keep the flat and every part thereof … in good repair and condition including decorative repair and condition and to renew and replace all worn or damaged parts”. 
    2. the landlord’s obligation to “keep in repair … the structure and exterior of the Flat and the building including the drains gutters and external pipes thereof and to make good any defects affecting the structure…”.
  2. The landlord has a two-stage formal complaints procedure if it cannot find an immediate resolution to a complaint. At Stage 1, the resident’s complaint will be investigated by a senior manager, who will respond within 15 working days. At Stage 2 a more senior manager will respond to the complaint within 20 working days of receipt of the escalated complaint.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that it “will aim to seek a remedy which puts the resident back in the position they would have been in, had the service failure or issue not happened. If redress is not achievable by other means we may take a decision to award compensation as part of a solution”. The policy allows the landlord to make discretionary or ex-gratia payments, and states “the objective when we consider such cases is that any action we take, or award we make, will be to help put the person back into the position they would have been in before they incurred the loss.”
  4. The landlord’s Repairs Book states that “Although Royal Greenwich insures the structure of your building, you are responsible for insuring the contents of your home. We strongly advise all tenants to take out insurance to cover their possessions and decorations against theft or damage”,

Summary of Events

  1. The resident is a joint leaseholder of the landlord and his property is a flat. The balcony of the above flat partly covers the resident’s bedrooms.
  2. In April 2018 the resident reported that there were water stains to the ceilings in the rear bedrooms. On 13 June 2018 the landlord carried out a water dye test for leaks into the resident’s property from the balcony of the flat above and also from the adjacent asphalt walkway and parapet walls.  In June 2018, the landlord marked the stains and monitored then.  It concluded that water must be coming via a building defect to the parapet wall allowing rainwater to travel inside the cavity wall, which sat on the floor slab between the flats above the affected bedrooms. It further concluded that the floor slab was soaked which then seeped into the resident’s ceilings. The landlord arranged for a contractor to repair the asphalt walkway and apply a roof felt cover over the top of the parapet wall to prevent water ingress into the cavity.  These works were carried out in September 2018.
  3. On 18 October 2018, the landlord inspected water damage at the resident’s property and the recent repairs. It noted that the stains in both rear bedroom ceilings had not decreased or increased since when they were marked in June 2018.  Since the parapet wall had been capped, it concluded the next step would be to repaint the ceiling with heavy stain blocker. A painting and decorating contractor inspected the water damage on 2 November 2018 and subsequently carried out works on or around 13 December 2018.
  4. On 24 January 2019, the landlord post–inspected the works that had been carried out. It re-inspected on 31 January 2019 as the resident raised concerns about further water ingress. At this inspection, it noted that the paint had lifted in two bedrooms and there were high protometer readings to a small area of one ceiling. It raised an order to scrape off loose paint to allow the concrete ceiling to dry out fully, before resealing and painting.
  5. The landlord checked the ceilings in the resident’s bedrooms on 28 March 2019. It found that the ceilings were dry but noted that plaster had blown in a bedroom due to previous water retention. Subsequently, the landlord raised an order for patch repairs, then for the ceiling to be sealed and painted. On 30 May 2019 the landlord post–inspected works carried out to the resident’s ceilings and noted that damp meter readings showed both ceilings remained dry.
  6. In an exchange of correspondence during November / December 2019, the resident asked for compensation of £250, based on his service charge, for the time taken to trace and remedy the leak to his property, and make good the damage, which he stated was 14 months.  The landlord advised that concealed leaks could be hard to detect and required a process of elimination to determine the source. It noted that it had carried out plastering and decorative works that he was not entitled to receive, therefore it would not offer any other form of compensation. On 30 December 2019 the landlord advised the resident’s MP that he could make a formal complaint if he was dissatisfied with the response to his request for compensation. It is not evident that the resident raised a formal complaint at this time, though.
  7. On 3 March 2020, the resident reported another leak to his bedroom ceiling. On 5 March 2020 the landlord traced a leak into the resident’s bedroom and noted that the asphalt in the balcony of a neighbouring property had indents, the balcony edging feet were loose, and the brick face lip pointing was slightly cracked. It raised an order to seal these areas and agreed to decorate the bedroom ceiling once it had dried out. Due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, the landlord’s roofing contractor did not attend to carry out repairs until 3 July 2020.
  8. Om 19 August 2020 the landlord carried out an inspection of the balcony and a dye test, noting that repairs had been completed around balustrade posts but that mastic seals needed to be applied to the brickwork lip at the top of the resident’s windows. It also noted that the ceilings in two of the resident’s bedroom were dry, showing low damp meter readings, so plaster repairs and the sealing and painting of the ceilings could be ordered.
  9. The mastic seals to the brickwork lip at the top of the windows were completed on 22 September 2020. As further meter readings taken by the landlord at this time showed low readings the landlord raised an order for completion of ceiling works on 28 September 2020. Appointments were subsequently made for plastering works on 13 October 2020 and follow-on painting works on 16 October 2020.
  10. On 7 October 2020, this Service, having been contacted by the resident, advised the landlord that he was unhappy with the handling of his reports of a leak.  The landlord registered a Stage 1 complaint and on 19 October 2020, it sent the Stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord noted that there had been several unconnected leaks to the resident’s property since March 2018. It noted that repairs had been undertaken to the walkways above, the external brickwork, the balcony of the above property and above the resident’s windows and frames. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in tracing and resolving these leaks.
  11. The landlord further noted that in recognition of the time taken to identify the leaks and for the inconvenience caused, it had carried out various repairs and decorative works to the affected rooms within the resident’s home, despite the resident being a leaseholder. It noted that plastering and decorative works to the resident’s bedrooms were completed on 16 October 2020. With regards to the resident requesting a refund of £250 from his annual service charge, the landlord declined to make payment.  It explained that the service charge that he was billed for related to works carried out as part of ongoing maintenance services to the block and were not related to any works completed to resolve the leak.
  12.  On 2 November 2020 the resident wrote to escalate the complaint, again raising concerns about the time it had taken the landlord to remedy the leak and the number of appointments.  He again requested compensation of £250.
  13. On 25 January 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s escalated complaint within five working days. The landlord advised it would aim to respond by 18 February 2021 given staff shortages at that time. As no response was received, the Ombudsman wrote again to the landlord on 20 April 2021 and again requested that a Stage 2 response was provided to the resident within five working days. The resident contacted this Service on 29 April 2021 to advise that he had not received the response to his complaint, therefore this Service wrote again to the landlord on 30 April 2021 to advise that it would issue a Complaint Handling Failure Order if it did not respond to the complaint within five working days.
  14. On 4 May 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint. It advised that the leak into the resident’s property was not resolved “for some time” due to the difficulty in tracing a number of leaks in different area which required a process of elimination. It noted that it had carried out repairs to the resident’s property that would usually be his responsibility and completed all works on 16 October 2020. The landlord also offered the resident reimbursement of £150 taking into account the delay in resolving the leak and delay in responding to the complaint.  The award was accepted by the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. The leak reported in March 2018 indicated that there may be disrepair to the resident’s block of flats that allowed water ingress to his property. Therefore, it was appropriate and in line with its obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s block that the landlord investigated. Having carried out investigations it carried out works that it believed would prevent further leaks in September 2018.  This confirms that it took steps to meet its landlord repair obligation.
  2. The landlord also agreed to carry out repairs to the resident’s ceiling and redecorate, and carried out these works in December 2018.  This was over and above its obligations, and therefore to the resident’s benefit, because as confirmed by his lease, the resident is responsible for carrying out repairs within his property and for decorating. It is noted that the resident had the option of making an insurance claim to cover damages and losses incurred from disrepair issues, but there is no evidence that hook up this option.
  3. It transpired that the resident raised further concerns about water ingress in January 2019. In response, the landlord monitored the moisture levels of the ceiling then repaired it when it was satisfied that it was dry. This again was over and above its obligation. Moreover, it was pragmatic and demonstrated its intention to resolve the matter that the landlord repaired the further damage to the ceilings as it brought the resident back to the position he would have been in had the further damage not occurred. It transpired that there was a further leak to the resident’s bedroom ceiling in March 2020.  However, again the landlord again investigated in line with its repair obligation and carried out remedial works to the resident’s property.
  4. It is acknowledged that several months passed between the initial reports of leaks and the final works to the resident’s property causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. Moreover, there were several leaks, therefore a cumulative impact on the resident.  However, this is not necessarily indicative of service failure as in some circumstances of disrepair and in particular in the case of leaks, where the course of the leak is not apparent and may change, and where there may be more than one leak, it may take more than one inspection to ascertain and remedy the problem.  Therefore, in this case, whilst repeated visits caused delays, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to have carried out more than one visit, in order to resolve matters, as the issue was complex, and the root cause of the leak was unknown.  During this time the landlord had not been inactive and was taking reasonable and proportionate steps to try and ascertain the extent and cause of the damage to the resident’s ceilings.
  5. There were some aspects of the delay to the completion of works that were reasonable.  For instance, it was appropriate that the landlord took damp readings over several months before carrying out remedial works to the resident’s ceilings as any repairs carried out if the areas was damp would not have been effective.  It was also appropriate that works were delayed between March and July 2020 given lockdown restriction prevented contractors from attending properties.
  6. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  7. In this case, the landlord, as it accepted, delayed in repairing the leaks reported by the resident. However, as noted above, some aspects of the delay were reasonable and, ultimately, the landlord investigated the source of the leak and the efficacy of repairs in line with its repair responsibility. It carried out works to the resident’s flat which was over and above its obligations, and which therefore constituted redress to him.  The works brought the resident back to the situation he was in had the leaks not occurred which was in line with the guidance within the Compensation Policy. The landlord also apologised and offered compensation of £150, which also took into account the fact that the Stage 2 response was not sent within the timeframe set out in the Complaints Procedure.  Taken altogether, whilst the Ombudsman accepts that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience from the leaks to his property, the landlord has offered reasonable redress that was proportionate to the circumstances of the case, and which satisfactorily resolved his complaint.
  8. As noted above, after the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, he reported a further leak in June 2021. He has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the leak. It is therefore recommended that the landlord contacts him to ascertain the full reasons for his dissatisfaction and raise new a formal complaint to investigate its handling of the leak, if it has not already done so. Given that another leak has been reported despite the landlord’s best efforts to diagnose and repair the leak, it is also recommended that the landlord advises the resident of any further inspections and works that it proposes to take.
  9. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that remedies to complaints include “acknowledging where things have gone wrong” and “providing an explanation, assistance or reasons”.  Essentially, the complaint process is an opportunity for a landlord to demonstrate that it has heard the resident and that it intends to improve the landlord / tenant relationship.  In this case the landlord stated that there had been number of leaks since 2018 and that there had generally been delays.  By not being more specific on the timelines, actions it had taken and mitigating circumstances, the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the resident’s complaint. Another recommendation has been made in this regard.

Determination (decision)

  1. Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:” At any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’”.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress which has satisfactorily resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks first reported in 2018.

Reasons

  1. The landlord, as it accepted, delayed in repairing the leaks reported by the resident. However, some aspects of the delay were reasonable and, ultimately, the landlord investigated the source of the leak and the efficacy of repairs in line with its repair responsibility. It carried out works to the resident’s flat which were over and above its obligations, and which therefore constituted redress to him.  The works brought the resident back to the situation he was in had the leaks not occurred which was in line with the guidance within the Compensation Policy. The landlord also apologised and offered compensation of £150, which also took into account the fact that the Stage 2 response was not sent within the timeframe set out in the Complaints Procedure.  Taken altogether, whilst the Ombudsman accepts that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience from the leaks to his property, the landlord has offered reasonable redress that was proportionate to the circumstances of the case, and which satisfactorily resolved his complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord contacts the resident to ascertain the full reasons for his dissatisfaction with the handling of the leak reported in June 2021 and raise new a formal complaint to investigate, if it has not already done so. 
  2. The landlord advises the resident of any further inspections and works that it proposes to take in respect of leaks to his property.
  3. The landlord provides guidance to relevant staff about investigating and responding to complaints.  It is recommended in particular that staff are reminded to outline the facts and issues considered and explain how the decision on the complaint has been reached.
  4. The landlord is requested to confirm its intention in respect of the above recommendations within the next four weeks.