Lewes District Council (202123052)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123052

Lewes District Council

25 August 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s management of roofing repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and request for compensation.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 5 December 2014. The property is a one bed flat in a converted street property. The landlord’s records show that it was aware of the resident having mental health vulnerabilities since the outset of the tenancy.
In February 2020, the resident reported a leak which was repaired in March 2020 but his ceiling was not fully replaced afterwards. He reported another leak in October 2021 but this was not fully repaired until February 2022
In August 2021, the resident raised a complaint around the overall delay and requested compensation for the management of the repairs and other costs. The landlord did not meet his request and the complaint process was exhausted in January 2022.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repair policy utilises four different priority types and details examples of such repairs as follows:
1. Priority one – Emergency repairs – Within 24 hours – “Making safe items if they are dangerous eg temporary repair to a leaking roof”
2. Priority two – Urgent – Within 7 days – “Roof repairs (possibly following an emergency repair as a priority one)”
The landlord’s complaint policy uses a two-stage process as follows:
1. Stage one – Complaint is acknowledged within five working days and a response “usually within 10 working days of the original complaint unless there are special circumstances”.
2. Stage two – Complaint is acknowledged within five working days and a response “usually within 20 working days of the original complaint unless there are special circumstances”.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may provide a “remedy based on loss of habitable rooms” and defines habitable rooms as “kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms only”. It says that “if compensation is justified due to rooms being unusable then a scalable payment should be used”. It gives an example, “if a three room property consisting of a kitchen, living room and bedroom has one unusable room, ie the living room, a refund would be a one third of the rent”.
The compensation policy says it is “a tenant’s responsibility to insure the contents of their home”

Summary of events

On 3 February 2020, the resident reported a leak at his property. An emergency works order was recorded as “ceiling is bowing down feels at risk of falling through”. Three hours later the repair log noted the works order as “cancelled tenant not in”.
A works order was recorded against the property on 4 February 2020 to “inspect in loft for cause of wet bowing ceiling”. This was recorded as being completed on 7 February 2020. Internal emails said it made the ceiling safe and booked an inspection. The same email said that on 20 February 2020, roofers attended the property but there was no access.
The landlord attended on 4 March 2020 to inspect the property ahead of the required repairs. The works order was noted “remove the whole ceiling in the lounge that has been damaged by a leak and cover and seal”.
On 11 March 2020, the landlord attended and put up new plaster boards. It left part of the ceiling, on the right hand side of the chimney where the leak had been, without any plaster board. It noted the works order “to return to do final area of ceiling repair”.
Internal emails from the landlord said that on 18 March 2020, roofing contractors attended and “carried out repairs to the felt and ridge and re-laid the tiles”. It assumed that the gap in the ceiling that was left on 11 March 2020 was “deemed necessary until such time that the roof could be fixed”.
On 2 October 2020, the resident reported a leak coming through the ceiling. Internal emails from the landlord said that it had a works order note from 12 October 2020 “having problems contacting the tenant have done cold call with no answer and phoned twice again with no answer”.
On 3 November 2020, the resident’s representative raised a complaint that the landlord had not completed the repairs, following the initial leak in February 2020, and the most recent report of a leak in “September 2020”. She said that further damage had been caused by the leak and requested that the landlord address the issues urgently. Within its replies, the landlord said that it had spoken to the resident on 2 November 2020 and agreed to have roofers attend to identify the cause of the leak. The resident’s representative was informed that the roofers would attend the next day.
The roofers attended on 4 November 2020 and replaced tiles, ridges, sealed leadwork and renewed felt on the chimney. A plasterer attended the next day, 5 November 2020, and said that the leak had stopped and they could skim the ceiling but the missing corner would need to be boarded and the room cleared by the resident before the skim could be completed.
Internal emails show that at this time, the landlord identified that it failed to follow up on the works in March 2020, meaning the ceiling was left incomplete. It said it was “likely related to lockdown coming shortly after” and “there are no notes to suggest the resident had contacted us to follow up” until “they had another roof leak”.
Emails between the roofing contractor and the resident’s representative show that further work was completed on 9 November 2020. Chimney cowls were installed, as the inside of the chimney was found to be “soaking wet”.
Following heavy rainfall on 15 November 2020, the resident reported that the roof was leaking again. A new works order was raised on 16 November 2020.
The landlord attended on 18 November 2020 and carried out further works to tiles, leadwork and ridges. The landlord then raised a new works order for the plastering to be completed and the light fitting to be reinstated. An appointment was booked for 2 December 2020 to complete this work.
On 28 November 2020, the resident’s representative contacted the landlord and said that there was still a leak. She questioned the quality of the work carried out to date and said that the cowl fitted to the chimney was not secure.
As the leak continued, the landlord escalated the repair to more senior members of the repair team. They spoke to the resident’s representative on 2 December 2020 and arranged internal and external inspections of the property for 7 December 2020.
Following the inspection, the resident’s representative emailed on 14 December 2020 to enquire whether the work would be completed prior to Christmas. Internal emails from the landlord said it would likely not be before Christmas due to the time it would take to have the scaffold set up, checked and the work booked.
On 15 December 2020, the scaffold set up was arranged for 6 January 2021 with the sign off for it on 8 January 2021. This was communicated to the resident’s representative and it was agreed that a rent adjustment would be considered once the work was completed. Internal emails show that consideration was given to whether the property was safe to occupy during this time, and its repairs team indicated it would be ok.
Work was completed on the roof by 11 January 2021. The contractor asked that the landlord confirm that the leak was no longer present. Within its email, it raised concerns over a concrete slab which looked “worse for wear”.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 17 January 2021 to question why no works had been undertaken at the property. They asked that works be carried out ASAP.
On 18 January 2020, the landlord and the representative discussed the works over email. The landlord said that it would be renewing the concrete slab next.
On 2 February 2021, the landlord communicated that all works to the chimney had been completed and they asked that the resident confirm the leak had stopped.
In an emailed dated 5 February 2021, the resident’s representative said the leak was still ongoing. Internal emails show that the landlord then made the decision to remove the chimney.
On 24 February 2021, the landlord confirmed the chimney removal and all other roofing works had been completed. It then raised a works order for the internal decoration to be completed.
The works order was closed on 3 June 2021 but within the resident’s eventual complaint, they confirmed that this was completed in March 2021.
The resident’s representative raised a complaint on 23 August 2021. Within the complaint they questioned the overall time taken to complete the repairs. They provided a breakdown of their requests for several payments, totalling £5,170.99. This included:
1. A rent reduction – £1,436.07.
2. Loss of earnings for days off taken during repairs – £1,360.
3. Reimbursement for damaged goods – £1,559.92.
4. Telephone calls to landlord – £35.
5. Distress and inconvenience – £780.
On 31 August 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and explained that this may not be answered within its normal timeframe for complaints. The resident’s representative acknowledged this on the same day.
The landlord emailed the resident’s representative on 7 September 2021 and explained that it was still looking into their claims with its contractor. It said it would provide a response once their investigation was complete.
The resident’s representative requested an update on 28 September 2021.
The landlord responded on 5 October 2021 and explained that due to the location of the leak, the contractor had disputed the claims for the damaged goods. It explained that their claims would be considered against the compensation policy but that any offer would likely be lower than that requested in the complaint. The resident’s representative acknowledged this response the next day.
On 5 December 2021, the resident’s representative chased a response from the landlord, as it had not provided its position around the complaint.
The landlord provided a response on 8 December 2021, setting out its position around the claims for compensation. It explained that it did not consider the living room uninhabitable during the period in question. However, it said it proposed compensation as if the room was uninhabitable but it said its payment was based on the distress and inconvenience caused by the time taken to fully repair the roof and ceiling. Due to the location of the leak, it disputed the request for payment towards damages, other than for wallpaper and the bookcase directly below the leak. It also explained that it would not make a payment towards any days off work that the resident had taken. The landlord proposed a total payment of £1,844.59. This was made up of:
1. A goodwill payment of £1,699.61. This was one third of the total rent (£5,098.86) for the period between 4 February 2020 and 3 June 2021. These dates were the first report of the leak and the date the work order was closed, respectively.
2. A payment of £109.98 towards the cost of wallpaper and a bookcase that it said could have been damaged by the leak. The costs of these items were taken directly from the resident’s claim.
3. A payment of £35 for reimbursement of calls made to the landlord and the contractor.
The resident’s representative responded on 22 December 2021. They agreed to the offer of £1,844.59 but only as an interim payment, as “the amount you propose does significantly fall short of what I would consider fair and reasonable”.
The landlord provided a response on 30 December 2021. It said it had escalated the complaint straight to stage two “in recognition that it has not been possible to resolve your complaint directly with our Property Services team”.
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said this was due to the complaint being recorded incorrectly.
2. It explained that the time taken to address the repairs was due to it undertaking a “process of elimination” as the damage was caused by water ingress. It also said that other contributing factors were the COVID lockdown and access issues it experienced.
3. It maintained its initial compensation offer of £1,844.59.
The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 18 January 2022 and it was considered duly made on 25 February 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of roofing repairs

When the issue with the ceiling was first reported, it was recorded as a priority one repair. The landlord attempted to attend on the same day in line with its repair policy but was unsuccessful, as the resident was not at home. When this work order was raised again, it was listed as a priority two and the landlord attended three days later, which was also in line with its repair policy. However, given that the work order was for the same repair, this should have been recorded under the same priority level. This demonstrates an inconsistency around the way the jobs were recorded by the landlord. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as a “wet bowing ceiling” could have led to further damage if not attended quick enough.
The landlord identified that an inspection was necessary on 7 February 2020. In line with its repair policy, this should have been completed within 7 days. However, this was not carried out until 4 March 2020, over three weeks later. Although there was a record of an unsuccessful visit on 20 February 2020, this would also have been outside of its repair timeframe, as it was 13 days later. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as it well outside of its policy timeframe. Further to this, leaving a leak undiagnosed could have led to the problem escalating during the wait for the inspection.
The landlord replaced the ceiling on 11 March 2020 and left part of the ceiling open to allow potential access for further inspection of the roof. It then carried out work on the roof on 18 March 2020. The corner of the room being left open after 11 March 2020 work is reasonable, given that it may have needed further access to inspect, or assist with the roofing work. However, it is clear that the landlord then failed to follow up on the job as it should have returned shortly after the work was completed on the roof, to finish the living room ceiling. Although the COVID lockdown did occur shortly after the roofing work on 18 March 2020, the landlord had several days to return before it. Further to this, the repair logs provided by the landlord show that the works order to replace the ceiling and the works order for the roofing work were both marked as completed on 13 March 2020 and 18 March 2020 respectively. This means that there would have been no open works order to notify the landlord of outstanding work at the property. This is a failing by the landlord around its management of works as the required follow on works were not raised. This left the resident in the unenviable position of having a gap in the ceiling of their living room for over six months.
When the resident reported a further leak on 2 October 2020, the landlord recorded this as “water leaking through the roof into the lounge”. The landlord said there were contact notes on 12 October 2020 that it experienced issues accessing the property. However, no further action was taken until 2 November 2020, when it was agreed that roofers will attend to inspect the leak on 4 November 2020. This Service does not view access challenges to be a justification for such a delay. Given the potential for a leaking roof to become a more serious issue, the landlord should have been more proactive in trying to arrange access between 2 October 2020 and 2 November 2020. During this time, the landlord could have written or used other communication methods to successfully contact and engage with the resident to make them aware of the access need and agree a new appointment. This Service has not seen any evidence of this kind of action being taken. This is a failing by the landlord as it meant that the resident was left with the leak for a period of one month, potentially unaware of the landlord attending the property to carry out an inspection or any required works.
Following the complaint raised in November 2020, the landlord managed the repairs more effectively with two different repairs being carried out that month. When those repairs were found to have been unsuccessful following further rainfall, it escalated the matter and arranged for further inspections with senior members of the repairs teams. Given the number of repairs undertaken around the same issue, it was reasonable that different or more experienced operatives were given responsibility to deal with the leak.
After the issue was escalated, the landlord has taken more decisive steps to try and address the ongoing leaks. There was a delay in starting these works, as it had to arrange for scaffolding to be set up at the property but given the previous failed repairs, this would be seen as the next logical step to assist with identifying the cause of the leak. The delay in setting up the scaffolding is unfortunate but given the time of year and the requirement to complete a risk assessment, this is deemed unavoidable.
The landlord completed two further repairs in January 2021 but neither resolved the leak. As it had been unable to resolve the ongoing leaks, the decision was taken to remove the chimney and this finally resolved the issue with leaks.
In considering the time taken to resolve the matter, there have been significant delays on the part of the landlord. Identifying the cause of water ingress can be a lengthy process, requiring multiple visits and fixes. However, there were several periods during the time between the initial leak being reported in February 2020 and the eventual fix in February 2021, where the landlord could have shown better management of its repairs function, leading to the leak and associated repairs being remedied sooner. For one year, the resident had to either live with a hole in the living room ceiling or be aware of a leak into the living room. This could have been reduced by six months, had the landlord only followed up on its initial leak fix in March 2020 by replacing the ceiling. Although the area affected was limited, this could only have reduced their enjoyment of their living room during this time. The landlord was aware of the residents vulnerabilities but there was no evidence of consideration being given to the impact. When considering the failings in the management of this process and taking into account the compensation proposed, this Service considers it appropriate to make a finding of reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint. This may have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken some steps to acknowledge and provide redress for its failings. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the leak, the landlord’s handling or impact on the resident was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and request for compensation

After the complaint to the landlord on 23 August 2021, it should have provided a stage one response by 7 September 2021. Despite continued assurances that it would respond to the complaint, its first detailed response was dated 8 December 2021. Although it had previously indicated on its acknowledgement email that complaints were being managed outside of the usual timeframe, its reply significantly exceeds its target timescales. This was a failing on the part of the landlord as it did not provide a response within the timeframe outlined in its policy. This meant that the resident was left without any acknowledgement of the delay or a proposal around a new timeframe for them to receive the response.
The landlord said the complaint was managed outside its normal complaint process due to it being recorded incorrectly. It said that the property services team was investigating the compensation claim with its contractors, rather than it being managed as a complaint. This is despite the landlord having already acknowledged it as a complaint within its acknowledgement. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as its incorrect handling of the complaint led to a significant delay in its response. There were no proactive updates from the landlord which left the resident chasing responses for three months, which was an unnecessary inconvenience and caused avoidable time and trouble for them.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that a payment is justified if a room is considered unusable. The landlord said it did not consider the room as unusable during this time, given the location and area affected by the leak. While the leak certainly would have limited use of part of the room and caused inconvenience, there was no evidence that the room was unusable.
The landlord said its proposal for compensation was to account for the time taken to resolve the leak and the distress and inconvenience caused by it. It used the principles of its compensation policy for the loss of a room, as the basis for its offer of £1,699.61. Given the overall time taken to address the leak and the limited use of the living room during that time, it is the view of this Service that the offer from the landlord was reasonable.
The landlord also considered the resident’s request for damage to their property, offering £109.98 to assist with the cost of replacing the wallpaper on the chimney breast and the bookcase. Given their proximity to the leak, it is understandable that it took the position that damage to these items could have been caused by it and therefore reasonable that the landlord offered this payment.
With regards to other items that the resident had requested payment for, the landlord explained that it had not received any supporting evidence to show that the leak caused damage to these other items. It said that one of its agents recalled that the TV etc were “nowhere near” the water ingress and it was a “localised leak” in one corner of the room. It said it considered the claim for other items “excessive” and that it would not compensate the resident for them. It is evident that the landlord gave adequate consideration to the resident’s claims for all of the items detailed within the complaint and made its decision based on the available information. In view of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to have directed the resident to claim for these items through his own contents insurance.
The resident said they did not have contents insurance and this is why they looked to the landlord to provide a payment. The landlord’s compensation policy clearly states that residents are responsible for insuring the contents of their home. Therefore, it cannot be considered the landlord’s responsibility to provide this payment if the resident has not taken out the relevant insurance. In view of this, the landlord’s offer to replace some but not all of the items is reasonable and in keeping with its compensation policy. However it failed to signpost the resident to a possible insurance claim against its own insurance.
When considering the request for financial loss as a result of time taken off work, the landlord rejected the request for payment of £1,360. It said that there was no supporting evidence of this loss and the visits to the property were essential. It is clear that throughout the time taken to address the leaks in full, the landlord attended on numerous occasions. However, any visits to the property were to carry out repairs or diagnose the cause of the leak. The tenancy agreement says that residents are required to allow access for required works and in this instance, the visits fall into that category. Consequently, although this would be inconvenient for the resident, the landlord cannot be considered responsible for a loss of earnings due to the resident having to remain home for these visits. Therefore, it is reasonable for the landlord to have rejected this element of the request for compensation. The landlord did agreed to provide a payment of £35 towards time and cost of phone calls within its response, which is reasonable under the circumstances.
As the resident’s representative rejected the offer, this was then managed as a stage two complaint and a full response was provided. It upheld the complaint and maintained its initial offer. However, the content of the response is in fact an updated version of the initial response, rather than a review of the complaint and the initial response itself. Some of the content is taken from the response on 8 December 2021, with it being copied directly or slightly reworded. Although the content is not necessarily incorrect, it could not reasonably be considered a full review of the complaint response provided on 8 December 2021. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as it did not follow its full complaint process. In doing so and when considering the content of the stage two response, this Service is of the view that the resident did not have access to a full and fair review process.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to manage the complaint in line with its own policy. It took over three months to provide its first response and when it did, it was not identified as a stage one response. Although it provided a stage two response, the content of it was not in keeping with the principles of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Although it upheld the complaint and provided a offer of compensation, the resident has not had access to a full and fair review process. Its overall management of the complaint has delayed access to this Service and impeded the resident’s right to review. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the roofing repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and request for compensation.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the roofing repairs

The landlord failed to attend visits in line with its own repairs policy when the first leak was reported. It failed to replace the ceiling after it addressed the leak, meaning the resident had a hole in the ceiling for six months. When another leak was reported at the property, it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure attendance and the leak was left until a complaint was raised. Although a more proactive approach to the work was taken afterwards, it still took four months and chasing from the resident, before the cause of the leak was identified and repaired. Had the landlord managed the initial repair reports more efficiently, this would have been addressed sooner with a significantly reduced detriment to the resident’s enjoyment of their home.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and request for compensation

The landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaint in line with its own complaint policy. Despite acknowledging the initial complaint in August 2021, it did not manage it as a complaint, leading to a delay of three months before it issued a response. This was a stage one response in keeping with the Complaint Handling Code or its own complaint policy. When the resident escalated the complaint, it provided a stage two response which maintained its initial position without conducting a fair review, as a lot of the content was taken from the initial response to the complaint. The outcome of the investigation and the compensation offered were both reasonable but the landlord failed to manage the complaint process correctly.

Orders

The landlord’s handling of the roofing repairs.

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £1,844.59 to the resident towards the damage caused by the leak and the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords handling of the roofing repairs. If it has not already been provided, it should be within 28 days of the date of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £300 to the resident towards the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord must review the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within four weeks of the date of this report and bring into its operations within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider at minimum:
1. Knowledge refresh for relevant staff re complaint handling timeframes and managing complaints in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
2. Ensure that thorough complaint investigations are undertaken and independent fresh reviews are completed when escalated to stage two.