London Borough of Barnet (202311741)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311741

London Borough of Barnet

14 January 2025

 

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 handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the roof.

Background

  1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property, a 2-bedroom, first floor flat, since 2003. The landlord, a local authority, is the freeholder of the building.
  2. On 3 November 2022 the resident reported a leak coming through the kitchen ceiling from the roof. A surveyor attended on 10 November 2022 and found the leak was coming from the tiles around the flue pipe. However, they also found that the cowl on top of the flue pipe appeared to contain asbestos.
  3. On 7 January 2023 the resident raised his complaint. He said that, despite chasing the landlord several times, he had not been provided with any updates regarding the outstanding repairs.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 February 2023. It explained the surveyor’s findings from the visit on 10 November 2022 and said it had been liaising with them regarding any risk attached to removing the cowling. As a result, it had decided the cowl could be removed and the roof repaired. It had raised this repair as an emergency but it was still waiting for a date when the works would be carried out. It upheld the complaint and awarded £50 for the delay in fixing the leak.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 26 February 2023, saying it had been over 4 months since he first reported the leak and there was still no date for repairs. He said the delay had led to further damage to the kitchen ceiling and the compensation offered was not enough for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 6 April 2023 it said that, following the initial inspection the report was referred to a surveyor, but they had not escalated it to the landlord’s asbestos contractors. The landlord acknowledged this had caused a significant delay, but the works had recently been completed without the need to instruct an asbestos contractor. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay the landlord increased the compensation previously offered to £250.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 21 July 2023 and confirmed he wanted us to investigate the complaint. He said that no repairs had been carried out and the property was still suffering from the leak he reported in November 2022.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the external structure of the building, including the roof. The lease says the resident is responsible for maintaining the internal structures of the flat. The landlord’s repairs policy says that responsive repairs are to be completed on the day of the appointment, which will be within 15 working days of the orders being raised.
  2. The resident reported the leak on 3 November 2022. The landlord recorded this as a responsive repair and raised an order for the cowl to be removed. A contractor then attended on 10 November 2022. The landlord appropriately arranged for a contractor to attend the property within the timescale set out in its repairs policy. While the repair could not be completed during this visit, it was reasonable for the landlord to want to assess the asbestos before carrying out repair works.
  3. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident has said he does not believe the leak was properly investigated or traced during the visit on 10 November 2022. However, landlords are entitled to rely on information provided to them by their contractors in the absence of contradicting independent third-party evidence, and the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence which disputes the findings of the surveyor.
  4. Between 21 November and 15 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord several times as he had not been given any updates regarding repairs to the leak. Each time, the landlord confirmed that it had chased the repairs team and asked them to update him. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that the repairs team ever updated the resident. This subsequently led to the resident raising his complaint in January 2023. This failure to adequately communicate with the resident and provide meaningful updates caused him unnecessary inconvenience as he had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates.
  5. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed it had been agreed that the asbestos risk was minimal because it was a small amount and was outside. As such, it would remove the cowling and then repair the roof. The landlord’s records show it completed the repair on 9 March 2023, 83 working days after the initial inspection had taken place. While it was reasonable for the landlord to want to assess the asbestos before completing the works, this was a significant and unjustified delay.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained that the delay was due to the surveyor not escalating the report to its asbestos contractors. It also said that the repairs had been completed on 9 March 2023 without having to disturb the cowling, and therefore there had been no need to instruct an asbestos contractor. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the discussions which took place when deciding that the asbestos risk was minimal. Additionally, it has not explained why this decision was not reached sooner if an asbestos contractor was not needed. In the absence of any such explanation, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the delay was unreasonable.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to adhere to the timescales in its repairs policy and to adequately communicate with the resident. These failures caused avoidable delays to the leak being repaired and unnecessary inconvenience to the resident.
  8. 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.
  9. In its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord acknowledged there were failings in its handling of the report of the leak which had caused a significant delay to the repairs being carried out. In recognition of this and the impact on the resident, it offered a total of £250 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which have no permanent impact. As such, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves its poor handling of the repairs satisfactorily.
  10. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident has disputed that repairs were carried out. In his response to the stage 2 response dated 7 April 2023, he said there had not been any repairs to the roof and the leak was ongoing. He also raised these points when bringing the complaint to this Service in July 2023. However, the landlord has provided evidence of the repair works carried out on 9 March 2023, including photographs from before and after they were completed. On that basis, this Service is assured of the landlord’s position in relation to the actions taken in response to this complaint.
  11. The Ombudsman has not received any recent updates regarding the status of the leak or the resident’s more recent concerns about ongoing water ingress. As a result, a recommendations is made for the landlord to inspect the property and the reported ongoing leak connected to the roof repairs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the roof.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered through its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
    2. Arrange an additional inspection of the roof and investigate the resident’s concerns that the leak is ongoing.
  2. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendations.