Greenwich Council (202122271)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122271

Greenwich Council

1 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her property and its handling of the subsequent repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat.
  2. The resident initially reported that there were water marks on several walls in her property during September 2020. She noted that she had used anti-damp paint, dehumidifiers in case of humidity, but the marks were still apparent and the walls were wet. An appointment to inspect the property was initially arranged for 22 October 2020 but this was then rescheduled for 6 November 2020 due to staff shortages. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether a repair took place at this stage and the resident continued to report the same issue to the landlord throughout November 2020. 
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in February 2021 as an appointment had been arranged for 18 February 2021 but the operative had not attended and she had not been provided with the reasons for the missed appointment. She also expressed dissatisfaction that the issue had been ongoing since September 2020, the works were postponed on several occasions and that there had been poor communication in relation to the scheduled appointments.
  4. In response, the landlord explained that due to an administrative error, the appointment had been suspended as no operative was available. It confirmed that a plumber attended on 23 February 2021, but no leak was found. It added that a further investigation would take place on 22 April 2021. It later confirmed that following a further investigation on 22 April 2021, it had identified that the rainwater pipe at the side of the property was leaking at a high level which was affecting the corner of the building. A repair appointment was arranged for 3 June 2021; however, the resident was later informed that this did not go ahead due to emergency work needed elsewhere. It was rescheduled for 18 August 2021; however, the resident was later informed that this again, did not go ahead due to an administrative oversight. An appointment was then arranged for 6 September 2021 and the works were reported as completed on 29 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had repeatedly needed to contact several teams in order to progress the works and that it had not effectively communicated the need to reschedule appointments ahead of each appointment date. It apologised for the inconvenience and confusion caused by its communication regarding the missed appointments. 
  5. The landlord has since advised that it had offered the resident £130 compensation, comprised of £75 for three missed appointments and £70 for the delay in completing the repair over seven months.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that the leak issue and water ingress was ongoing and she had initially reported the issue in September 2020. She added that she was now experiencing damp and mould in the property as a result of the water ingress. She wanted the landlord to repair the issue as soon as possible.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that she raised a new complaint with the landlord on 20 March 2022 regarding the landlord’s communication regarding her ongoing reports of the leak in February 2022. It is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider events after the date that the case was duly made as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the situation and considers paying further compensation if the problems in the resident’s home have not been resolved. If the work is not complete, the resident has the right to approach the Ombudsman if suitable redress is not offered following her completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her property and its handling of the subsequent repairs.

  1. The resident’s lease agreement confirms that the resident is responsible for keeping the internal parts of the property in good repair. The landlord is responsible for repairs needed to the roof, external walls, guttering and rainwater pipes. The landlord’s repairs handbook confirms that emergency repairs should be attended to within 2 hours to make safe, follow-on works may then be required. Urgent repairs, should be completed within 1-5 working days. All other non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days. if there is likely to be a delay in carrying out a repair, the landlord should explain the reason why to the resident and provide an expected timescale for the work to be completed. The landlord would also be responsible for informing a resident where an appointment needs to be rescheduled ahead of the original appointment date and time where possible and explain the reason for the missed appointment.
  2. In this case, the resident initially raised concern about water marks on the walls in two areas of her property on 29 September 2020. It is not disputed that following this there were several delays and missed appointments and the landlord did not effectively communicate with the resident to inform her of the cancellations in advance. It was reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a non-urgent repair in line with its repairs policy as the resident had reported that they had been present for some time at the time of her report and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was at any immediate risk as a result of the leak.
  3. It is noted that an appointment was arranged for 22 October 2020 but this was cancelled due to staff shortage. The resident was not informed of the cancellation which is likely to have caused an inconvenience. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the rescheduled appointment for 6 November 2020 was carried out. The resident later acknowledged that some repairs to the roof were carried out around this time, although she continued to report that she was still experiencing the water ingress on 20 and 25 November 2020.
  4. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. However, the landlord would be expected to keep clear records of the repairs it had undertaken and the evidence provided is not clear in this case.
  5. Following the resident’s report of a missed appointment on 18 February 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for the property to be inspected on 23 February 2021 within a reasonable timeframe. A damp inspection was undertaken on 22 April 2021, which was approximately 41 working days later. The landlord has not acknowledged or explained the reason for the delay at this stage which further adds to the inconvenience caused to the resident. The operative identified that the rain water pipe was leaking to a high level and affecting the corner of the property, however, the repair needed was not carried out until 29 September 2021, following several missed appointments. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s timescales for such repairs. Whilst there was likely to have been some delay due to the ongoing impact of Covid-19, this would not account for the entirety of the delays in this case, and would not account for the landlord’s lack of communication regarding the missed appointments.
  6. The landlord has acted appropriately by apologising for the delay and the lack of communication regarding missed appointments and advising that it had offered compensation to the resident. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Whilst the landlord has somewhat acknowledged the delays and poor communication, its offer of £130 compensation was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of its errors, as set out above.
  7. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience is set out in our service’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of between £250 and £750 in cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include, a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant and failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs. In this case, the resident needed to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and the landlord failed to complete repairs over a considerable period of time. As such, the Ombudsman deems that an increase in compensation for errors in its handling of the repairs is necessary to the amount of £300 in view of this.
  8. It is noted that the resident reported that she was experiencing the same issue with water ingress when it rained in January 2022. If it has not done so already, the landlord should carry out an inspection in response to the resident’s recent reports that the issue is ongoing and it should carry out any repairs that are identified as necessary following this inspection. Given the resident’s reports of damp and mould as a result of the water ingress, the landlord should also confirm its position regarding any internal works and provide the resident with the details of its insurance if needed.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a leak into her property and its handling of the subsequent repairs.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are carried out within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused and the time and trouble spent by the resident due to the delays in completing the repairs and its poor communication. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £130 if this has not already been paid.
    2. If it has not done so already, the landlord should carry out an inspection in response to the resident’s recent reports that the issue is ongoing and it should carry out any repairs that are identified as necessary following this inspection. Given the resident’s reports of damp and mould as a result of the water ingress, the landlord should also confirm its position regarding any internal works as a result of the external leak and provide the resident with the details of its insurance if needed.
    3. All orders should be completed within 4 weeks of this report and confirmation provided to the Ombudsman of the landlord’s compliance.