Lewisham Council (202227635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227635

Lewisham Council

27 June 2024

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 water ingress.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record-keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 2-bedroom, second floor flat in a block. The resident has stated in correspondence that she is asthmatic.
Between 2016 and 2018, the resident reported water ingress issues to an external wall, which resulted in water staining and wetness to the living room, and leaks and black mould to a bedroom. In early 2020, after a recent storm, the resident reported further water ingress to the external wall which had resulted in issues including wetness and water staining to the living room wall. The landlord scheduled visits in March then December 2020 which do not appear to have gone ahead due to COVID-19, although scaffold was erected around that time. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2021 about rebooking the appointment, and in August 2021 reported further water ingress, both without apparent response.
On 20 October 2021, the resident complained. She said there was an ongoing water ingress issue in the external wall near the balcony door, and said there was a further recent leak in the bedroom. She highlighted that prior appointments in Spring and December 2020 had not gone ahead, and asked the landlord to resolve the cause of the leaks, which she believed was the result of rain. She noted an upstairs flat had an ongoing leak, and said the water was not coming from their property. Following this, the landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s flat on 24 November and 16 December 2021, and scheduled to visit the flat above her on 14 December 2021.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 19 November 2021. It acknowledged the resident complained about ongoing water ingress from an external wall, which had worsened after she had been told it was condensation and which she said was caused by the rain. It said that as there were no faults with the building fabric it planned to inspect affected and neighbouring properties and would arrange any necessary repairs after this. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused. It also said that response times had been impacted by volumes and low staff levels which it was working to address.
In January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord for updates, and after being told there had been issues with accessing the property above her, she chased an update again in February. After a lack of updates, the resident requested escalation of the complaint in April 2022. She continued to report that the external wall appeared to have water coming in through the brickwork and was permanently wet, and she also said the bedroom ceiling leaked after rain which resulted in mould.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 6 May 2022. It apologised for delays due to IT system issues and that ingress issues were still experienced, and said other properties at the block were experiencing similar issues. It said that following a ground inspection, scaffold was needed to inspect the external render, after which a scope of works and timescales would be agreed. It apologised that there had been a delay erecting scaffold which had been affected by access issues. It said a team would help progress the repairs and provide updates. The same month, scaffold was erected.
In July 2022, the landlord internally noted that there had been a lot of cracks in the render to the building rear, which could have been the source of a leak affecting multiple flats. It noted that works had been completed to hack off defective render back to the brick, apply a mesh over brickwork cracks, apply a bonding agent and renew the render. It said that it was hoped that the repairs would stop the water ingress from affecting all the flats, but this would not be known until there was heavy rainfall.
In September 2022, the resident asked the landlord for updates as she had not received any since its stage 2 response. She said that she was aware works had been done to the exterior but this had not rectified the issue, and water ingress continued to be visible on the walls of 2 rooms, and water was again dripping through the bedroom ceiling after heavy rain. The same month, the landlord apologised for the delay in update, passed on information from its July internal discussions, and said it would expedite matters.
In October 2022, the landlord’s contractors inspected after missing an initial appointment. Their report, which was not provided to the resident until January 2023, noted that general condition of the flat roof was “ok” and it had had recent works. They noted that guard rails installed along the perimeter had not been installed on rubber pads and it was believed this may have caused the escape of water. They noted they had repaired this area using a waterproof compound and brick works had been repointed as a precaution. They noted that if any other issues arose, works to the guard rails would need to be considered.
The resident chased the outcome to the visit in November and December 2022, reporting further areas affected by wetness and mould and further bedroom leaks after rain. In mid-December 2022, steps were taken to approve works recommended by a contractor, and a repair was raised to check gullies. The landlord updated the resident that additional works had been approved but these were weather dependent. It also requested some availability to inspect which she provided. The same month, the resident requested escalation of the complaint due to the repeated communication issues she had experienced.
On 18 January 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended and later updated that works were done to clear a blocked flat roof outlet, rake out and repoint brickwork, and sweep and apply a waterproof compound to the roof. The landlord updated the resident and suggested she monitor water ingress for a period to see if improvement was noticed. The resident noted soon after that the works were only recently done but issues in the living room and bedroom were worsening if anything.
The landlord provided a stage 3 response by an independent adjudicator on 25 January 2023. They noted that there was still water ingress after inspections going back to 2016. They said it was not unusual to take several visits to identify the cause of water ingress, or for simpler options to be initially attempted, but it had taken too long to identify and address the issue. They noted concern that staff in 2016 thought the issue might originate with recent roof major works that could be rectified without cost to the landlord and leaseholders, which may not be the case now. They acknowledged that as a result of the landlord’s failings, the resident had suffered avoidable distress and probably costs as well. The communication had also been poor which had caused avoidable time and trouble. They noted that the resident had legal rights which provided a more effective remedy than anything they could recommend, enabling her to recover costs and get work completed within a reasonable timeframe, and urged her to seek legal advice. They recommended the landlord to:
1. apologise for the delays and poor communication.
2. establish the cause of water ingress and provide a schedule of remedial works to which it commits.
3. pay £500 for distress and time and trouble, and £500 towards costs of rectifying water damage.
4. review the case to establish why it had taken so long to make so little progress.
The same day, the landlord internally requested the recommendations, which it accepted, to be completed within 4 weeks. In March 2023, the resident chased for an update on the plans to investigate and rectify the water ingress. After the landlord said it was awaiting feedback from a roofing contractor, she chased for an update again in May 2023. She noted that her asthma had worsened over the past few months and she was losing work due to this.
From another case, the Ombudsman can see that there was a roof inspection in September 2023 after which it is understood some works were completed in November 2023. In January 2024, some roof works were agreed to apply liquid membrane, to prevent further water ingress to below properties. In February 2024, the landlord noted the resident’s complaint about a ceiling leak and said an independent surveyor would visit her as soon as possible. It also noted that the roof was resurfaced in 2015 and it would need to refer the issue back to the original contractor. In March 2024, a report the landlord compiled noted the roof had no visible defects, it was putting in place a maintenance schedule for a roof down pipe, and some roof works were planned which would not be charged to leaseholders. This included works its surveyor had recommended to install ‘pad stones’ to a roof handrail, as this should not be in contact with the felt because it could pierce through and allow water ingress. In June 2024, it is understood that some roof works were completed and aimed to be post-inspected.
The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. She said that nothing recommended by the stage 3 had been mentioned or acknowledged by the landlord. She says that water ingress and mould is ongoing, there has been a lack of communication and investigation by the landlord for this, and it had stopped responding to her requests for updates. She has said that she is seeking:
1. for the landlord to identify the cause of the water ingress, provide her with a timeline for the works to be rectified, and adhere to this timeline.
2. to not be charged for any share of the work carried out to fix the ingress.
3. for the landlord to make good the inside of her property at its expense, or to provide funds towards rectifying the internal damage.
4. to be compensated in recognition of her time and trouble, inability to sell her home, impact on her health, and dehumidifier and heating costs.
5. an apology for the delays, poor communication and ongoing stress and damage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident reports that there has been water ingress issues since 2016, however the main focus of the Ombudsman’s investigation is from around 2021, when the resident made her formal complaint. This is because the longer time goes on, the more difficult it is to conduct an effective investigation, and because we see no evidence that the resident pursued the matter between 2016 and 2021 as a formal complaint. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress

The resident made reports in August 2021 and complained in October 2021. The landlord inspected in November and December 2021, erected scaffold for further investigations in May 2022, and completed rendering works for cracks to the wall in July 2022.
The resident made further reports in September 2022, and in October 2022 contractors inspected and noted the roof condition was satisfactory. They noted that guard rails had not been installed on pads and this may have caused the escape of water. They noted that relevant areas were applied with waterproof compound and repointing was also done, but recommended that if other issues arose, remedial works to the guard rails would need to be considered.
The resident made further reports in November 2022, and in mid-December 2022 the landlord raised a repair to check gullies, and in mid-January 2023 roof works were done to clear a blocked outlet, repoint brickwork, and apply a waterproof compound. The same month, the landlord internally noted intentions to follow the stage 3 complaint response’s recommendations to establish the cause of water ingress, provide a schedule of remedial works, and deliver on this. The resident subsequently chased for updates in March and May 2023, says communication from the landlord has been limited, and says issues remain ongoing (as of May 2024).
The evidence shows that the landlord has taken action after reports from the resident, and taken multiple actions for the roof. However, progress has been slow, communication has been poor, and the landlord has failed to show that all of its actions are tailored to issues the resident experienced such as wall wetness, that she said was due to other structural issues and not the roof. The extent and impact of the issues are not entirely clear, as these seem restricted to certain areas and walls where photos show decoration damage, but the resident has said the issues have affected her health and they will have clearly been unpleasant to live with for an ongoing period of time. The stage 3 response was appropriate to acknowledge and compensate for this, however aspects of the landlord’s handling is not satisfactory.
The information that the landlord has provided has generally been unclear, and provides limited insight into what its approach has been for the specific issues the resident reported, namely wetness to walls in the living room, and leaks after rain in the bedroom ceiling. The landlord should be able to show more clearly what conclusions were made after inspections of these and how any repairs were intended to address these. The landlord should also be able to show more clearly how works were monitored and investigated when issues persisted.
The landlord accepted the stage 3 recommendations to apologise to the resident, pay £1,000, establish the cause of water ingress, provide a schedule of remedial work, and carry out a case review. However, the resident says that the landlord has not mentioned these, and the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it met any of the recommendations after the stage 3 response.
The stage 3 response acknowledged that there was delays and poor communication, and it is not satisfactory that the delays and poor communication continued after this. This is not satisfactory, as an aim of a complaints procedure is to provide an opportunity for a landlord to rectify previous poor service, and to show it is committed to the satisfactory resolution of an issue.
The landlord does not show that it had an effective action plan to resolve water ingress, informed by inspections of the resident’s property and other properties experiencing similar issues. In October 2022, the landlord’s contractor said that guard rails not being installed on pads may have caused water ingress, and they recommended consideration of works to the rails if further issues arose. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this in a timely manner when further issues were reported, and it is not until March 2024 that works were progressed to install ‘pad stones’ to a roof handrail (likely the same works). This was 17 months later, which is not satisfactory and undermines whether an evidence-based and timely approach has been taken.
The above leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress.
The resident has said that she seeks not to be charged for work to fix the ingress, for the landlord to make good inside her property (or fund the cost of this), and to be compensated for the wider impact on her. It is not in our expertise to make definitive decisions about negligence, liability and the impact on health and property. It is also not in our authority to make definitive decisions about whether works are chargeable, as the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has jurisdiction to decide on such matters. The resident has the option to seek independent advice as advised in the stage 3 response.
However, the landlord has been ordered to pay compensation for the further delays and poor communication, to provide details of its liability insurer to the resident so that she has the option to make a liability claim, to update her on its intentions about charging for recent water ingress works, and to consider appropriate action in her property.

The landlord’s record-keeping

The assessment of the landlord’s handling has not been helped by its record-keeping. Good record-keeping is one of the fundamental aspects of housing management, and an improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would benefit both it and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared, improve the landlord’s communication, and allow it to better understand its residents, property histories, and previous actions in relation to repairs so that it can consider the most appropriate response.
The information that the landlord has provided has generally been unclear, as noted at paragraph 23. The landlord has provided poor repairs records, in response to an information request after the investigation commenced, which lack dates and detail. It did not provide any property or roof inspection reports in response to a further request, although information provided indicates there should be a number available. The investigation has relied to a large extent on information provided by the resident. The landlord should be mindful of its obligation under paragraphs 10 and 11 of our Scheme to provide information in a timely manner. The above leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s record-keeping.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has reviewed its record-keeping since the complaint went through its procedure, so only a recommendation is made for this aspect.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress.
2. service failure in the landlord’s record–keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
1. apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the further delays and poor communication. This is in addition to the £1,000 awarded at stage 3, which should be paid if it has not already been.
3. pay the resident £100 for additional distress and inconvenience caused by its record-keeping.
4. provide the resident with details of its liability claims insurer.
5. update the resident about the nature and status of recent works to address water ingress issues at the block, any longer term plans for regular roof maintenance at the block, and its intentions for charging for any works to resolve the water ingress issues which has not yet been charged for.
6. take steps to arrange an independent inspection of the resident’s property if it has not done so already, to review the living room walls and the bedroom ceiling and if any further action is needed to resolve any issues. It should consider using the same independent surveyor as another property, and consider if internal actions similar to the other property are applicable. The landlord should then write to the resident within 2 weeks of the inspection, providing the outcome, an action plan for next steps, and an action plan to monitor the issues with her. It should ensure any monitoring plan has sufficient oversight to ensure it is met.
The landlord is ordered to, within 6 weeks, take steps to review its approach for complex repairs such as the repeated roof leaks and wall water ingress, and consider any process changes to ensure these are effectively project managed, have wider oversight and monitoring, and include effective resident communication plans. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the outcome.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review block repairs reports, to ensure that all properties affected by ongoing water ingress are identified, investigated and individually communicated with.
The landlord is recommended to take steps to ensure that its current processes enable monitoring of commitments in its complaint responses.
The landlord is recommended to ensure that steps following its previous record-keeping review address the issues identified.
The landlord is recommended to ensure appropriate processes are in place to ensure that it meets its obligation under paragraphs 10 and 11 of our Scheme to provide requested information in a timely manner.