Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (201816716)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201816716

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

16 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 complaint is about:

1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress into her property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2.       The resident occupies her one-bedroom property under the landlord’s shared ownership scheme, with her partner and baby, born November 2018.  She owns 25% of the property.

Summary of events

3.     The resident reported a leak in December 2018. There is no evidence of the specific date but time-period when the report was made is not disputed.  The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 11 January 2019. On the resident following up the matter, the landlord wrote to the resident 15 March 2019 to say it could not find any records of a surveyor inspecting the property. The landlord offered an inspection on 18 March 2019. The resident continued to report that the water damage was getting worse.

4.     The landlord attended the property 25 March 2019 and accepted that the repair works required were its responsibility. It informed the resident that it would raise a works order for contractors to attend and carry out the repairs to waterproofing the roof terrace and re-laying the tiles.

5.     The resident made a formal complaint on 14 May 2019 about the lack of action by the landlord to effect repairs “within a reasonable period of time”. She reported that the damage internally had got worse including to plaster work in the bedroom, with water running down the bedroom wall every time it rained. She also highlighted she had a 6-month-old baby who slept in the bedroom. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 15 May 2019.

6.     There are no records between May and December from either parties, however the resident has explained that she assumed that the relevant works were being carried out in the property above her during this time.

7.     On the resident chasing the matter, on January 13 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it had closed the complaint and that it had cancelled the repair request on the basis that the property was shared ownership.  It also told the resident to contact the upstairs neighbour herself, to ask them to fix the issue. The resident wrote to the landlord to inform them the damage and impact had got worse.

8.     After the Housing Ombudsman Service contacted the landlord, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 January 2020, referred to as ‘on-going leak’. The landlord informed the resident that the case was referred to a ‘case handler’ but did not provide a timescale for a response. It added that it was investigating the leak and arranging access.

9.     On 7 February 2020, it emailed to say that it was seeking access to the flat above. A surveyor attended on 14 February 2020.  On 24 February 2020,  it informed the resident it would contact the contractor to ascertain the dates the works would be carried out, and on 28 February 2020 that it would be contacting the ‘original’ surveyor, and that it was looking at arranging scaffolding or a cherry picker.

10. In the meantime, the Housing Ombudsman Service wrote to the landlord on 14 January 2020, 7 and 25 February 2020 requesting that the landlord respond to the resident with a stage 1 decision on the complaint, and with a time estimate for resolving the repairs.

11. Lockdown began 23 March 2020.

12. On 27 March 2020, the landlord responded at stage one of the complaint’s procedure, upholding the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised and said that the delay to the repairs related to the resident’s status as a shared owner,  and due to not having been able to establish immediately the source of the water ingress. It assured the resident that the works had been prioritised, though this would have to wait the end of lockdown. It accepted that its service had not met the standards it should have done, and offered £250 by way of compensation to the resident.

13. On 24 April 2020, the resident requested that the complaint be escalated on the basis the landlord’s response was not adequate or satisfactory. The response did not accurately reflect the events, given the impact of the ongoing disrepair on her and her family, and her small son in particular, including loss of amenity, financial loss, distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, and poor communication.

14. The resident stated that, in her view, the reason for the delay was not the uncertainly over the landlord’s obligations, as the landlord had already accepted the disrepair was its responsibility in March 2019. She also argued that there was a history of water damage in the building and therefore the cause could have been identified sooner – and had, in any event, been identified in March 2019.

15. On the 28 April 2020, the landlord acknowledged the request for a review and promised that it would contact the resident “within the next 4 working days”.  There is no record that the landlord did so contact the resident, and the resident chased the landlord on 25 May 2020 and 11 June 2020.

16. Lockdown ended 10 May 2020 and the landlord instructed a contractor on 16 June 2020.

17. On 22 June 2020, the landlord provided its final response to the complaint. The landlord acknowledged that the delay was indeed not due to the time it took to establishing its repair responsibilities and access, as it had stated in the first response. It accepted its failures of communication, its poor record keeping, and inaccurate information. It increased its offer of compensation to £500, promised to carry out remedial repairs in the property and suggested the resident could claim for contents under her contents insurance. It also promised a plan of works ‘soon’ and said it had commissioned another contractor.

18. The events post the final stage of the landlord’s complaint’s procedure is not within the remit of the Ombudsman jurisdiction however the events are relevant as the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to follow through with its promises.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress to her property

25. The lease between the parties provides that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the balconies and roof terraces including redecoration, improvement, and any renewal. It is an implied term that such repairs must be carried out within a reasonable period of the landlord having notice of the defect. The landlord has accepted that remedying the water ingress the resident had reported fell within the landlord’s contractual responsibilities.

26. The landlord’s repairs policy provided that it would address repairs “that require attention to avoid deterioration or unreasonable inconvenience” within five working days of notification. It would arrange pre-inspections where repairs were complex or a result of a complaint, also within five working days of notification.

27. Compensation would be paid in cases where the landlord had “failed to meet its service standards, or where the resident. has not been able to use part of their home. Compensation can consist of monetary payments as well as additional services, for example the landlord may carry out additional works over and above its landlord obligation”. Examples of service failure include where the landlord:

1. failed to meet its service standards, such as appointments not kept
2. has not acted reasonably.
3. A resident has not been able to use part of their home. Loss of room is calculated as a percentage of the rent for which the policy provides a formula.

28. The compensation policy also takes into account the time and trouble incurred by the resident, a succession of service failures and whether the problem is resolved within a reasonable timescale.

29. While the landlord expects the resident to have its own insurance, where the resident’s possessions are damaged through “building failure” which is not covered by the resident’s own insurance, the landlord would process a claim via its own building insurance, if the landlord were at fault.

30. A report of water ingress was likely to be (and transpired to be) a repair that would “require attention to avoid deterioration or unreasonable inconvenience and also transpired to be complex and as a result of a complaint”. In the circumstances, the correct response time or time for a pre-inspection was five  working days. The landlord sent a surveyor to the property on 11 January 2019 which is likely to have been slightly later than required by the repairs policy but only minimally.

31. However, its failure to follow up the initial visit was inappropriate and resulted in  the resident having to chase, and in the water damage worsening. The failure was at least partly due to poor record keeping as the landlord did not have a record of the inspection. This was in breach of the landlord’s obligation to address repairs within five working days of notification and its contractual obligation to effect repairs to the balcony and roof terrace within a reasonable period.

32. In addition, the landlord‘s initial denial that its surveyor had attended the property caused the resident further frustration.

33. While the landlord re-attended the property on 25 March 2019, the landlord again failed to follow up its inspection, and cancelled the works, without informing the resident.  This was neither appropriate or reasonable as again this was contrary to the landlord’s obligations and its policies. The resident was left with the impression that the works would be carried out, but instead, it appears that no progress had been made, and the resident suffered further water ingress and was given the trouble of chasing the landlord again.

34. Despite having determined in March 2019 that the works were the responsibility of the landlord, when the resident chased the matter in January 2020, the landlord initially referred the resident back to her neighbour above in order to discuss a solution. This was not in line with its contractual obligations, or its repairs obligations, and was frustrating for the resident.

35. While the landlord eventually accepted responsibility for the works, it did not provide any substantive response, timescale or plan from January through to March 2020. While the landlord updated the resident from time to time, at her request, and reassured her that the works were in hand, the updates were confusing, variously suggesting further surveyor visits, stating it was seeking a timescale from a contractor and then stating that it would commission a new contractor. The resident was put to the stress of chasing the landlord for a timescale and having the stress of continuing water damage.

36. Lockdown began on 23 March 2020 and ended 10 May 2020. While the landlord’s repairing obligations were not suspended during lockdown, government guidance stated that access should only be limited to “serious and urgent issues”. Particular care should be applied to block of flats. While the disrepair was significant, it was not urgent, such as an immediate threat to health and safety. Given the government guidance, the delay during lockdown cannot be attributed to the landlord. However, had the landlord acted appropriately, by arranging to carry out the works when it initially said it would, in March 2019, it is reasonable to conclude that the issue would not have persisted to the point when lockdown began.

38. While it is not clear from the evidence whether the landlord could have foreseen the further technical issues, the disrepair remains unresolved as at the date of this report.

39. The landlord’s offer to carry out works to remedy the water damage caused by the water ingress to the resident’s property was reasonable and appropriate given the landlord accepted that the repair was its responsibility, yet failed to resolve this issue within a reasonable timescale, and the damage became worse during the delays. 

40. The landlord’s suggestion that the resident should claim for the damage to her possessions through her contents insurance on the basis it expects the resident to provide insurance cover for her possessions with insurance is unreasonable given claims made under a policy may require the resident to pay an excess and/or may affect the resident’s future premium. Given there is evidence, which is not disputed, that the resident’s possessions suffered damage due to the landlord’s avoidable delay of effecting the repairs, it would not be reasonable to expect the resident to suffer any financial loss as a result. 

41. By paragraph 3.2 of the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord anticipates the possibility of processing a claim for the resident’s contents whether the landlord is at fault. While the policy sets out that the landlord will only process such a claim where the event (“building failure”) is not covered by the resident’s insurance, it would be appropriate for the landlord to submit a claim under its buildings insurance in any event, in order to avoid any financial loss by the resident in respect of making a claim to her own insurers. 

42. The landlord accepted its failings and offered compensation of £500. There is no explanation of how this figure was arrived at, but the landlord’s compensation policy sets out guidelines for compensation. As well as the general principles, the policy provides a formula in relation to loss of the use of a room. It is difficult to apply this formula strictly in this case given the resident owns a 25% share of the property and pays 75% of the rent and there is no evidence of how many days of the year the resident lost the use of the room altogether. Moreover, this policy is more likely targeted at secure/assured tenants, rather than shared ownership leaseholders. However, the policy does provide a broad indication of what a resident may expect to receive. Taking that and the principles of the policy into account, the amount of the compensation offered was not proportionate to the loss of amenity, distress and inconvenience the resident suffered over a significant period as a result of the delays to the landlord’s handling of the report of water ingress.  In addition, the resident also incurred the additional cost of running a dehumidifier.

43. The effect of the lack of repairs since March 2019 was that the resident suffered:

1. Partial loss of amenity, given the family slept in the living room when it rained or from time to time.
2. The impact on the resident in particular as one of the occupants was a baby, born in November 2018.
3. Distress and anxiety when it rained, over the water damage worsening  and the effect on the resident’s child, the resident’s anxiety for the effect of the water damage on her child and the potential effect on the resident’s own health.
4. The time, trouble, distress and inconvenience of pursuing the complaint
5. The resident stated that she wished to upsize and buy a larger property during the stamp duty “holiday” which ends 31 March 2021.
6. The property has been unsightly.
7. The resident reporting that the property was in an unsightly state.
8. Damage to the resident’s belongings.

44. It would be reasonable for any compensation to reflect the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience, the extent of the distress and inconvenience itself, as well as the costs reasonably incurred by a resident, which would not have been necessary if the service failure or maladministration the Ombudsman found had not occurred. The compensation should take into account the significant and serious long-term effect on the resident and her family, in accordance with the principles in the guidance of the Housing Ombudsman Service and the landlord’s own compensation policies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

45. The complaint policy promised to work with the resident, to agree actions to resolve the complaint and maintain continual communication with the resident throughout its investigation. It would also acknowledge receipt of a complaint within one working day from receipt by (the landlord) and a “complaint handler” would contact the resident within four working days. Where further actions were needed, there would be a further investigation into the issues raised and identification of a realistic and deliverable resolution. It would close the complaint when all the agreed actions to resolve the complaint have been completed and it would contact the resident to confirm they were satisfied that their complaint had been addressed and could be closed.

46. While the landlord acknowledged the complaint of the 14 May 2019 within 24 hours, as required by its complaints policy, the landlord failed to contact the resident after a further four working days as also required, and instead it closed the complaint without reference to the resident, in contradiction with its complaints policy.

47. There was a lack of clarify regarding the landlord’s complaints process. It was not clear whether in its acknowledgement 24 January 2020, it treated the matter as a fresh complaint or it had reopened the complaint of 19 May 2019, as it gave the complaint a different reference number to that of the original. However, the complaint made 14 May 2019 was the same complaint and had not been  resolved, and so it would be appropriate to treat as one complaint.

48. The landlord referred to the complaint as a complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling, yet it treated the complaint in substance as a complaint about its response to the report of disrepair. While the landlord states that the offer of compensation was in respect of “complaint handing”, the context of the correspondence makes it clear that the offer and response were in relation to the delay in effecting the repairs.

49. While the landlord acknowledged the complaint, contrary to its own policy, the acknowledgement 24 January 2020 was not followed up with by a “case handler”. While the policy does not set a timescale for the landlord to provide a substantive response, two months is not a reasonable period of time for a response, given the resident’s frequent requests, and in particular given the intervention by the Housing Ombudsman Service. It took a management intervention to elicit the landlord’s first response. The delay and lack of timescale caused further frustration and trouble to the resident.

50. The first response 27 March 2020 did not reflect the events. It ascribed the delay to the repairs to the landlord needing to ascertain responsibility, which (as the resident pointed out) it had already done in March 2019. It also referenced the difficulty of establishing the cause of the leak. Again, a diagnosis had been made (waterproofing the terrace) in March 2019, and there is no indication that diagnosis had changed at that stage. The response also failed to refer to the delay in responding to the complaint which had been made originally some 10 months earlier.

51. While the response did acknowledge delay, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the length of the delay to both the works, first reported December 2018, and the response to the complaint, first made May 2019.

52. This caused the resident the inconvenience of following up the complaint, including the trouble of preparing the lengthy and comprehensive letter dated 24 April 2020.

53. The landlord acknowledged the request for a review of the complaint but did not contact the resident within four working days, as required by its own complaint policy and did not provide a timescale for providing a response. The landlord made several promises to respond that it did not adhere to, and it did not provide a final response till 18 June 2020. This was neither appropriate or reasonable and necessitated further chasing by the resident.

54. In its final response, the landlord did not acknowledge that there was a delay in its response to the complaint, or that it failed to adhere to its policy including its timescales, and its promises made in correspondence regarding timescales.

55. Although the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays in responding to the escalation of the complaint, the landlord did not address the fact the complaint of 14 May 2019 had been closed. It did not apologise for the delay in its overall response. It did not address the extent of the inconvenience which had been caused to the resident over several months as she was trying to raise her concerns about the water ingress and to pursue the complaint.

56. While the landlord described the complaint as complaint handling, it has not provided a breakdown of its offer of compensation to clarify what, if any, part of its offer specifically refers to complaints handling failures.  The context of its correspondence makes it reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s offer was in relation to the delays in dealing with the water ingress, rather than complaint handling. Either way, its failures in its complaint handling was significant, it having closed the complaint of 14 May 2019 without reference to the resident, not having carried out a thorough investigation initially, and not having addressed its complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

57. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was:

1. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress into her property.
2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

58. There was a significant initial delay in addressing the repair to the roof of the property, due to poor record keeping and poor communication. However, the landlord acknowledged these failures, hence the finding of service failure rather than of maladministration. The landlord’s offer to pay compensation and to effect remedial repairs within the property were reasonable responses. However, the offer of £500 compensation was not proportionate to the loss of amenity, financial loss, distress and inconvenience the resident suffered as a result of the delays in the landlord’s handling of the report of water ingress on the resident. 

59. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in its own procedure, did not recognise the extent of the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays, and did not provide a reasonable explanation for those delays. 

Orders

60. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total amount of £1,250 within 28 days, to include the amount of £500 already offered, as follows:-

1. £1000 in recognition of the loss of amenity, financial loss, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the delays in the landlord’s handling of resident’s report of the water ingress into her property.
2. £250 recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its complaint handling.

61. The landlord is also ordered to take the following steps:-

62. The landlord is to confirm compliance to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

63. The landlord to effect repairs within a reasonable period and to ensure the resident is kept updated on a regular and frequent basis.

64. The landlord to take steps to ensure that its repair staff and contractors are maintaining accurate and contemporaneous records of inspections and repair appointments and follow up on inspections.

65. The landlord to take steps to ensure that it complies with its own complaints policy and provides time scales for response that it adheres to, including considering staff training.