London Borough of Brent (202234539)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234539

London Borough of Brent

3 December 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 handling of:
1. Reports of leaks in the property between April 2021 and January 2022.
2. Reports of leaks in the property between November 2022 and January 2023.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 15 February 2021. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The resident resides at the property with her husband and 5 children. The resident said one of her children has autism and another has severe asthma and eczema.
On 7 April 2021, the resident reported a leak coming through her kitchen ceiling. The landlord attended on 8 April 2021. The contractor’s note states: ‘no leak whilst on site. Resident said it had ceased a few hours ago after the shower stopped being used. Resident did not want me to carry out invasive repairs or get involved in removing the bath panel due to the time. I therefore temporarily sealed up the cracks I could see in the tile grouting. Further works: a job should be raised to have the bath tiled regrouted properly during the daytime as I have carried out a temp repair with sealant. Underneath the bath should be checked as well.’
The resident disputes that she informed the contractor that she did not want repairs completed at this time. A further appointment was booked for 13 April 2021.This was later changed to 21 April 2021, but it appears that the appointment did not go ahead. The resident reported that the roof was leaking into the kitchen when it rained on 6 August 2021. An appointment was booked for 13 August 2021. It appears that the visit went ahead and the landlord booked a further appointment for roofing contractors to attend on 8 November 2021. It was noted that ‘there are several issues to deal with on this roof in different locations’. An operative also attended the property in August 2021 and September 2021 to remedy some damaged tiles in the bathroom, which may have been causing a leak into the kitchen.
On 16 October 2021, an out of hours plumbing contractor attended as the kitchen ceiling was bulging. There is no record of their report following the visit. The resident states that the contractor was concerned that it was possible that the ceiling may collapse and advised the resident to ask for a further inspection the following day. On 17 October 2021, an out of hours joiner contractor attended. Their report of the visit confirms that they advised the resident there was ‘no danger of [the ceiling] falling down’. The contractor believed the issue was the result of water leaking behind the bath. The contractor advised the resident not to use the shower and recommended an operative attend the next day to seal the bath ‘as damage will get worse’.
In the early hours of 18 October 2021, the resident’s kitchen ceiling collapsed. The resident reported this and complained to the landlord immediately via email. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it booked an appointment for 18 October 2021 tomake the ceiling safe. However, although the contractor resealed the bath they were unable to complete the work with the ceiling. The resident confirms that the ceiling was not made safe. Further works were completed between 19 to 25 October 2021 and a sealer coat was applied to the kitchen ceiling on 6 November 2021. Roofing contractors attended on 8 November 2021. It was determined that the leak was caused by misaligned roof tiles, unsealed holes around the pipes, and misaligned verge panels. The roofing contractors re-connected and secured the roof tiles and verge panels, and filled the holes with fresh mortar. The landlord completed remedial works to the ceiling and these are shown as finished by 29 November 2021. A post-works inspection was not completed.
On 26 December 2021, the resident reported a further leak coming from her bathroom into the kitchen. The resident said water was also entering the boiler.
On 1 January 2022, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. The resident said:
1. she had tried to contact the landlord to discuss her complaint, but she had received no response from it.
2. she was concerned that the leak had originated from the bathroom, despite the landlord completing repairs to the bathroom in late October 2021.
3. the work to repair the leak was substandard and had not resolved the issue.
4. the landlord had not completed a post-inspection of the property.
5. she had received no guarantee from the landlord that the property was safe and fit for habitation.
On 5 January 2022, the resident reported a further leak, and said that the kitchen ceiling was “bulging”.
On 21 January 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It explained:
1. it had recorded the resident’s other complaints, but it had combined the particulars of these complaints with the resident’s complaint in January 2022.
2. a multi-trade operative attended the property on 18 October 2021, to make the ceiling safe by making a hole for water to pass through. The operative also took down any or parts of the ceiling which were hanging dangerously. The landlord said it seemed the wrong tradesman was sent, as they were unable to carry out the work adequately.
3. another operative attended the property on 6 November 2021, to carry out works, which included applying a sealer coat to the kitchen ceiling. The landlord said the operative was due to return to the property on 8 November 2021 to redecorate the kitchen, but this arrangement was not convenient, so the resident agreed to contact the contractor directly to agree a suitable alternative appointment.
4. its out-of-hours team were reluctant to redeploy another emergency call out as it had already deployed both a plumber and joiner to the property. Furthermore, the out-of-hours team advised that since an emergency plumber had already attended and could not rectify the issue, they “did not see the point” in deploying another emergency plumber the following morning. The landlord said this was an inadequate response.
5. the festive period had impacted on its appointment scheduling. However, the landlord had arranged for a surveyor to attend and inspect the bulging ceiling on 7 January 2022. The surveyor’s report identified:
  1. signs of a leak above the boiler coming from the bathroom.
  2. the wall around the boiler required renewal.
  3. the ceiling board in the bathroom required renewal and the kitchen ceiling was bulging.
  4. further inspections were required to trace and repair the leak.
  5. the bath required inspection and sealant.
6. there were delays in it responding to the resident and there were delays in it carrying out repairs in the property due to it sending incorrect tradespersons to complete the work.
7. it understood the resident’s daughter was injured when the ceiling collapsed. The landlord said the resident could make a claim against the local authority for personal injury and it was unable to consider this under its corporate complaint procedure.
8. it had offered the resident a total of £300 compensation which comprised of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £100 for delays in its complaint handling.
Between 22 and 30 December 2022, the resident reported further leaks coming from the bathroom into the kitchen, which were also affecting the boiler.
On 3 January 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. The resident said:
1. the kitchen ceiling was bulging due to a further leak.
2. she had contacted the out-of-hours team on 27 December 2022, to report that the electricity was “tripping”.
3. she had no heating or hot water since 27 December 2022. The resident said the landlord did not provide sufficient heating to heat the property and she was concerned about energy costs.
4. while the landlord did attend the property on 27 December 2022, nobody attended the property on 28 December 2022. The resident said an operative attended on 29 December 2022 but was unable to resolve the issue.
5. leaks had been ongoing since October 2022, despite attempts to resolve the issue. The resident said she was still experiencing leaks, despite the landlord completing a full renovation of the bathroom.
Between 7 January and 24 January 2023, the resident reported intermittent issues with heating and hot water loss in the property. The resident also reported issues with the electricity and further leaks coming from the bathroom into the kitchen.

On 27 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:
1. it was sorry for the issues the resident had experienced and the impact of this on her and her family.
2. its contractors did not effectively repair the leak in the first instance which led to a further leak. The landlord said the works completed after the second leak appeared to have also contributed to the damage and the functionality of the boiler.
3. while its Housing Management Service (HMS) tried to repair the issues, they delayed in responding to the resident’s report of a leak and an unsafe ceiling until it collapsed.
4. the resident was left for almost 6 weeks without a boiler that was functioning correctly. Given that there were 7 people living in the property, 5 of which were children, the landlord said it would have expected the HMS to have considered offering the resident alternative accommodation.
5. it would consider reviewing its practices in these cases to ensure that it considers decants, and the decision recorded, in circumstances where the heating and hot water was not functioning correctly for more than a week.
6. it was aware of further issues in relation to the electricity tripping, causing the boiler to stop functioning. The landlord said it was in the process of installing a new fuse board in order to isolate particular areas of the property to help identify the cause of the electricity tripping.
7. the landlord said if the issues were not resolved the following week, it would decant the resident and her family.
8. it had offered the resident a further £1,000 compensation to reflect the “inconvenience, time, trouble, increase in energy bills, and time out of work”. This was in addition to the £300 it offered at stage 1.

Post ICP events

On 31 March 2023, the landlord inspected the property. The landlord identified the following:
1. there was water penetration and staining to a side elevation wall. The landlord said it needed to check the external areas of the property.
2. the resident said when she used the shower, water ran down into the kitchen. The landlord said there was a shower curtain, new tiles and the vinyl was silicone-sealed. The landlord said there was no obvious cause for the leaks downstairs, unless it was underneath the bath.
3. the tiles needed to be re-grouted.
4. the bath panel needed to be removed, so that a full inspection could be carried out to establish the cause of the water escape/ingress presenting in kitchen.
5. there were no external signs suggesting the cause of the water ingress.
6. remedial works would need to be carried out once the cause of the leak was established.
The Ombudsman understands the landlord completed works to the resident’s bathroom on 2 June 2023. However, the resident raised “snagging” issues on 5 June 2023. The resident reported a further leak coming from the bathroom on 23 July 2023. The landlord said the resident told it on 29 September 2023 that the leak was ongoing.
In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. the leak had been ongoing for over 2 years.
2. the leaks caused the electricity to trip as water had gotten into the boiler and thermostat. The resident said she was without a fully functioning boiler for 6 weeks.
3. the floorboards under the bath were rotting.
4. she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leaks, its communication with her, subsequent delays in completing the works and the conduct of some of the landlord’s operatives.
5. the issue has caused her and her family significant distress and inconvenience.
6. there were outstanding issues with the tiles in the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.

The resident has raised additional complaints with the landlord between 19 May 2023 and January 2024. Some of these complaints referred to ongoing issues with the kitchen ceiling and subsequent leaks in the property. However, the resident also raised issues about:
1. a defective front/back door.
2. the patio doors.
3. the conduct of the landlord’s contractors.
4. a slug infestation in the property.
5. damage to the property caused by the landlord’s contractors and subsequent redecoration works.
From the evidence provided, these complaints have followed a separate complaint procedure. That means the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the additional issues referred to at paragraph 16 in this investigation. This is because these are separate issues to the complaint which was made to the Ombudsman in March 2023.
The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint made on 1 January 2022 which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 27 February 2023 and was brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. The Ombudsman has referenced events that pre and post-date this period for contextual reasons.

Scope of investigation

The resident informed the Ombudsman that she was unhappy with the quality of the works carried out by the landlord in October and November 2021. In addition, the resident explained that the landlord put floor coverings down in the property when it completed the repairs, but the coverings were insufficient and dangerous. The resident also said that operatives left building equipment in the property which was a health and safety concern.
While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, we have not seen evidence to suggest the resident raised these issues as part of her complaint. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the repair issues relating to the resident’s bathroom and damage to the resident’s kitchen ceiling caused by a leak.
The resident said her daughter was injured when the ceiling collapsed. When there is an injury sustained, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
In this case, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s daughter’s injury, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord failed to provide key repairs records until after the Ombudsman completed its initial investigation. This indicates a shortfall in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord’s recordkeeping has impacted this Service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. If there is inaccurate or incomplete information provided by the landlord, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. This impedes and delays the Ombudsman’s work. This damages the sector’s reputation and erodes trust with residents. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

Policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on landlords to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of properties. Landlords are responsible for making repairs that are lasting and effective in all cases. Landlords should complete repairs in a timely manner to avoid impacting the resident’s enjoyment and use of their property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs such as severe leaks within 2 hours, and it will rectify the issue within 24 hours. The policy states that the landlord will attend any routine appointments within 28 calendar days.
The repairs policy also sets out a number of categories that fall within a resident’s right to repair, including:
1. total loss of electrical power (target for the landlord to carry out repairs within 1 day).
2. partial loss of electrical power (target for the landlord to carry out repairs within 3 days).
3. partial loss of water supply (target for the landlord to carry out repairs within 3 days).
4. total or partial loss of accommodation or water/heating between 31 October and 1 May (target for the landlord to carry out repairs within 1 day).

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks between April 2021 and January 2022

The evidence indicates that the landlord identified the need for a further inspection of the cause of the leak in April 2021. This does not appear to have taken place. Following the resident’s report of leaks when it rained in August 2021, the landlord booked roofing contractors to attend about three months later. Some repairs to the bathroom were also completed.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord explained to the resident why there was a 3-month delay in arranging for the roof repair works. This was well beyond the landlord’s target of 28 days for a routine repair. The request for the roofing contractors noted that instead of using scaffolding, the roofers would use abseiling equipment to keep costs down. It is not clear whether the landlord’s preference for not using scaffolding impacted how soon the appointment could be booked. The landlord also failed to mitigate the risk of further damage to the property during the 3-month delay by explaining to the resident what warning signs to look out for and how to escalate the matter to the landlord.
During the wait for the roofing contractors, it is clear that the leak continued. Two visits took place in October 2021 prior to the ceiling collapsing. The Ombudsman would expect photographs to support a written record of the inspection. The first visit has no written report of their observations and neither contractor took photos that the landlord has stored. Given the evidence from previous visits, it is likely that the leak was the result of issues from both the roof and the bathroom. However, the second contractor diagnosed the cause of the leak as solely coming from the bathroom. It is understandable therefore why they concluded that there was no risk of further deterioration to the ceiling if the shower was not used.
It appears that the contractor was unaware of the issues with the roof. Had they been aware that the landlord had arranged for roofing contractors to attend to issues with the roof, it is likely that they would have taken the damage to the ceiling more seriously. As such, the contractor should not be blamed personally for the failure to identify the risk. Instead, the landlord has shown a lack of joined up thinking. When the emergency appointment was booked, the landlord should have identified from its records that issues with the roof had been found in August 2021 and these were still awaiting remedial works. This information should have been shared with the contractor. It appears that this was not done.
Had the landlord properly informed the contractor, it is more likely that the contractor would have identified that there was a serious risk that the ceiling would deteriorate further and that urgent remedial work was required and consideration given to decanting the household. The landlord’s handling of this matter failed to prevent further damage to the kitchen or to mitigate the risk of injury to the household.
Although the landlord attended promptly after the ceiling collapsed to clean up and reseal the bath, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 21 January 2022 acknowledged that it sent ‘the wrong tradesman’ and they were unable to complete the work to the ceiling and make it safe. The landlord’s response made no reference to the other remedial works completed in October 2021. It also did not mention the roof repairs completed on 8 November 2021 and why it did not consider re-booking this as an urgent appointment following the ceiling collapse. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that it was responsible for delays during this period and the works appear to have dragged on for about six weeks with no post-work inspection completed.
The resident reported that the kitchen ceiling had a leak again on 26 December 2021. The landlord attended on 27 December 2021. The contractor reported that the previous repair work to the bathroom was ‘bad quality and is the reason the kitchen is leaking again. Ceiling is safe for now’. The contractor recommended sealing the bath and replacing badly fitted tiles.
The resident reported that the ceiling was bulging again on 5 January 2022. A surveyor attended on 7 January 2022 and found signs of a leak above the boiler. The surveyor recommended renewing the wall around the boiler and the kitchen ceiling. The surveyor also confirmed that the landlord should trace and repair the leak and renew sealant to the bath. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the repairs were completed by 9 February 2022, about six weeks after the resident highlighted the leak had returned. However, there is no evidence to confirm what further investigative steps it took to trace the leak.
The landlord’s handling of the leaks and associated repairs between April 2021 and January 2022 is indicative of severe maladministration. Although the landlord attended in April 2021, it failed to follow up and complete further investigations into the leak. When it attended in August 2021, the landlord identified problems with the roof, but booked a roofing appointment more than 2 months outside its normal repairs timeframe. The landlord failed to explain to the resident the reason for this delay or take steps to mitigate the effects of the delay by explaining to them what warning signs to look out for and how to escalate the matter to the landlord.
When the contractor attended in October 2021, it appears that they were unaware of the leaks from the roof and this impacted their ability to risk assess the ceiling. These failings ultimately combined to result in the kitchen ceiling collapsing, which put the household at risk. As well as causing considerable distress, disruption and inconvenience. The landlord’s response to the repairs in October 2021 and December 2021 were delayed and caused further inconvenience. It appears that the repairs completed in the bathroom after the ceiling collapse were of poor quality and led to further leaks. This could have been prevented had the landlord conducted a post-inspection check. Overall, the available evidence shows serious shortfalls in the landlord’s handling of the leaks in this period.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the property between November 2022 and January 2023

The resident complained to the landlord via email on 15 November 2022. She stated that she had reported further leaks from her bathroom and damage to the kitchen ceiling on 10 and 11 November 2022. The resident noted that no one had contacted her to arrange an appointment. She provided photographs to the landlord of the condition of the bathroom on 15 and 16 November 2022. In particular, these indicated significant water damage to the floorboards under the bath. The landlord replied on 16 November 2022. It confirmed that its site team would attend and as part of its inspection would include an assessment of the condition of the floorboards and decide if they need replacing.
The landlord’s assessment in November 2022 is not documented. The resident has stated that the project manager assigned to oversee the works in the bathroom dismissed her concerns about the floorboards. The landlord changed its view and decided the floorboards should be replaced in April 2023. The resident has explained that the landlord’s surveyor acknowledged that this work should have been completed in 2022. The available evidence is insufficient to determine if the landlord should have replaced the floorboards in November 2022. What is clear is that the landlord has failed to show that it inspected floorboards with significant water damage or that it considered the safety of keeping them in place. This is a further serious shortfall.
The resident reported a further leak in the property on 22 December 2022, coming through the kitchen ceiling whenever her family used the bath. On 28 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that the electricity in the property was tripping, and she had been left without heating or hot water. The resident also said that the leak had been ongoing for a year and the landlord had not fully remedied it.
The landlord said a plumber attended the property on 27 December 2022 and repaired a waste pipe to the bath. The plumber told the resident not to use the shower and said it was unable to find where the leak was coming from. The landlord recorded the leak on 29 December 2022 as an emergency repair.
The landlord said an electrician attended the property on 29 December 2022, but said a heating engineer would be required to check the leak was not coming from the boiler. On 30 December 2022, a heating engineer attended, checked the boiler and reinstated the heating and electricity. The landlord said the works completed after the second leak appeared to have also contributed to the damage to the functionality of the boiler.
The landlord said the leak was due to poor tilling and sealing around the bath. On 5 January 2023, the landlord said it removed all loose grouting and reapplied new grouting and sealant. It also fitted a new bath panel. The landlord said it completed these works on 10 January 2023.
The resident said the landlord did not provide sufficient alternative heating after she informed it that the boiler was not working. The landlord has not provided details of any interim heating or hot water it provided to the resident. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess if the landlord’s response was reasonable. It is good industry practice for compensation to be considered for loss of heating and hot water, if the problem has gone on for more than a few days in the colder months of the year, unless temporary heating and water heating facilities were provided.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it provided the resident with a dehumidifier after she reported water ingress in the property. The resident said the landlord offered a dehumidifier in November and December 2022 and April 2023. However, the Ombudsman has unable to confirm this based on the documentary evidence available. If the landlord provided a dehumidifier in November 2022, it is not clear why it waited almost 11 months to provide it, given the previous leaks the resident had reported in 2021 and January 2022.
The landlord has provided email correspondence to show that it discussed with the surveyor the option of decanting the resident in May 2023, but by this time there was only a few weeks left of the works, so the landlord did not offer a decant. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident was left for almost 6 weeks without a boiler that was functioning correctly. Given that there were 7 people living in the property, 5 of which were children, the landlord said it would have expected the HMS to have considered offering the resident alternative accommodation. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have considered the use of additional support, such as temporary accommodation, given the severity of the leak and the issues with the boiler. This was a severe failing in the landlord’s handling of the issues the resident had reported.
The landlord should have had due regard for the resident and any other person residing in the property. When the landlord was aware that there was no heating or electricity in the property during winter months, it should have considered whether the property was fit for human habitation. It should have considered whether a temporary decant was required. The evidence shows that the landlord did not consider this. This was not appropriate.
The resident advised the Ombudsman that there are a number of tiles which have become dislodged in the bathroom. The resident also said there are signs of a new leak affecting the property. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and arrange an inspection to assess and resolve any outstanding works or leaks affecting the property.
The resident explained that the issue has had a significant impact on her and her family. The resident explained that some of her children have physical, mental and learning vulnerabilities. The resident said she and her family were unable to bathe for several days and this impacted the hygiene and welfare of the household. The resident also said the issue disrupted her children’s routine and organisation, and there was often a lot of dust in the property which affected her child’s asthma.
It cannot be disregarded that the resident remained in a property where water was ingressing during the winter months. While the Ombudsman is not able to determine that the landlord caused injury to the resident – we can say that the impact on the resident and her family over this period was likely considerable.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it should have been more proactive in resolving the issue with the leaks. It offered compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and the impact this had on the resident and her family. While the offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the compensation was not appropriate for the severe failings identified. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the complaint had a significant and detrimental impact on her ability to enjoy her home and she spent a considerable time chasing the landlord for responses and updates on repair works.

The landlord’s handling of the leaks and associated repairs between November 2022 and January 2023 is also indicative of severe maladministration. In summary, the landlord was at fault because:
1. it failed to adhere to the timeframes in its repairs policy when completing the works.
2. it failed to demonstrate all the repairs were completed and to a good standard.
3. it failed to monitor the repairs effectively and escalate them to mitigate the delays the resident was experiencing.
4. it consistently failed to assess whether the repairs had resolved the issue by completing a post-work inspection.
5. it failed to be clear about the progress of the repairs, the delays it was experiencing, or to provide revised timescales to the resident.
6. it failed to demonstrate it had applied a lasting and effective repair to the leak.
7. it failed to manage communications with the resident about the progress and timescales associated with the repair. This caused uncertainty and contributed to the breakdown of the landlord’s relationship with the resident.
8. it failed to demonstrate it tried to mitigate the impact on the resident whilst the repairs were delayed.
9. it failed to assess whether a temporary decant was necessary for the resident and her family.
10. it failed to maintain sufficient records to detail the repairs it completed in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states:
1. landlords should issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of the complaint.
2. landlords should issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days of the escalation request.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord amended its complaints policy on 16 February 2022 in line with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord via email on 24 October 2021. She stated that she was unhappy with the plastic covering applied to the floor and stairs on 19 October 2021. The resident noted that 2 family members had slipped and almost hurt themselves. She explained that the surveyor agreed to have it removed when she raised concerns, but this was applied again the following day. The resident confirmed that she had to complain again and the covering was replaced on 21 October 2021.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 complaint response or follow up responses. The landlord should have spoken to the surveyor and the contractors to determine what had happened, apologise for the careless use of the covering and explain how it would change its working practices in the future. This is a shortfall in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident raised a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the bulging ceiling on 18 October 2021. The landlord incorrectly identified this as a service request and failed to acknowledge the complaint until 1 December 2021. The landlord’s response was delayed until 21 January 2022, by which point the resident had raised an additional complaint on 1 January 2022. The 3-month delay experienced by the resident was significant, unreasonable and inconsistent with the Code.
The resident clearly asked to escalate her complaint in her email to the landlord on 3 January 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 February 2023, which was 39 working days later. This was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in completing the repair works. However, it did not provide an adequate explanation about what it intended to do to resolve them and timeframes that it would complete the works. In its stage 2 response, it was also not clear in its position about decanting the resident and her family. It asked the resident to contact it if the works had not been completed in a week, but gave no assurances or timescales for the works, leaving the complaint open.
Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused, it failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the property between April 2021 and January 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the property between November 2022 and January 2023.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. The Chief Executive must make the apology in writing after reviewing this report.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £5,000 (this amount is in addition to the £1,300 already offered to the resident). This is comprised of:
  1. £1,000 to recognise the impact of the loss of use and enjoyment of the resident’s home as a result of its handling of the reports of leaks between April 2021 and January 2022.
  2. £1,650 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of leaks between April 2021 and January 2022.
  3. £1,000 to recognise the impact of the loss of use and enjoyment of the resident’s home (including the 6 weeks that the resident was left without a fully functioning boiler) as a result of its handling of the reports of leaks between November 2022 and January 2023.
  4. £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of leaks between November 2022 and January 2023.
  5. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s communication and complaint handling failures.
3. Contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for a full survey of the property to be carried out.
  1. The landlord should attempt to complete the inspection within 28 days of the date of this determination.
  2. The landlord should encourage its surveyor to provide their report within 10 working days of the date of the inspection.
  3. The landlord must then use all best endeavours to ensure the work is completed within a reasonable time, in any event, 56 days of the date of the inspection, or by the dates set out in any report provided by the surveyor. The schedule of work and action plan are to be shared with the resident and this service.

In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord must, within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. Carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take. The landlord must share the review with the Ombudsman and the review must include:
  1. a review of its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record all repair records and store surveyor and other specialist reports.
  2. a review of its out-of-hours procedures to ensure reports are dealt with effectively and all records stored correctly.
  3. an explanation of how the landlord will ensure the works of its contractors are completed within a reasonable time, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future.
  4. why it failed to demonstrate it had responded to all the resident’s reports and how it can prevent this in future.
  5. how it will ensure that actions it agrees to undertake during its complaint procedure are monitored and completed in a reasonable time.
  6. a review of its procedures for recording repairs, complaints, and all communication with residents. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
2. the findings of its case review must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord must also share the outcome with its senior leadership team.
The landlord must, within 56 days of the date of this determination, provide evidence of compliance with the orders specified in paragraphs 75 and 76. It must set out its proposed completion date for any outstanding works.