London Borough of Havering Council (202216067)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216067

Havering Council

14 December 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 the landlords’ handling of:
1. repairs to the guttering, and
2. internal remedial works and damage to the resident’s belongings.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported issues with the front and back guttering at the property on several occasions including on the following dates: 16 July 2019, 15 August 2019, 9 December 2019, 24 June 2021, 23 August 2021, and 29 September 2021.
On 2 October 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She had reported a fault with the gutter for the past 2-3 years. She said that the gutter was not repaired properly, and the issue had progressively become worse, causing water to cascade down the front of the house above the living room window when it rained. She said that water now leaked through the wall cavity into the living room.
2. Contractors sent to repair the gutter had attended without having the correct information to carry out the repair and on other occasions the repair was not carried out due to time constraints.
3. The landlord’s contractor and an independent assessor had advised her that the issue was being caused by a newly installed dormer window in the next-door property. The gutter next door had been installed on a banana angle which caused an increase in the flow of water. As her property was mid terrace with no down pipe, it had created a gulley where the water could not flow freely. She asked how the dormer window next door had been signed off by buildings regulations.
4. She had been unable to upload photos of the problem due to the size of the files, so asked if the landlord had an email address, she could forward these to. Alternatively, it could arrange to inspect the gutter.
5. She wanted the landlord to rectify the issue and said that she was seeking compensation for damage caused by the leak.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2021. It said:
1. The repair had been completed on 4 October 2021. It apologised if the resident felt its communication had been unsatisfactory.
2. It had asked its surveyor to do a post inspection of the works.
3. It advised the resident to make a claim on her contents insurance for damage to her possessions.
4. It could not comment on the building works carried out at her neighbour’s property.
5. It upheld her complaint as it had not rectified the issue on the first occasion and acknowledged that communication from staff had been unsatisfactory. Due to high volumes of communication and recent events (the COVID-19 pandemic), there had been a delay across some services.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2021. She said her concerns had not been answered. She said that the landlord had upheld her complaint without the investigation it was due. She was not happy the landlord had asked her to claim for the damage to her belongings on her contents insurance as she felt it had been negligent in its duty to complete the repairs to the guttering.
The landlord surveyor had post-inspected the work on 3 November 2021.
On 23 November 2021, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She said:
1. The landlord had not contacted her to discuss her complaint, nor had it viewed the photos and videos she had wanted to send it.
2. Repointing works had been scheduled for 30 November 2021; however due to several missed appointments by contractors and other times when contractors had attended but not carried out any work, she was unable to take any more time off work. The damage to the inside of the house needed to be made good. The only time she could be available was on 29 December 2021-31 December 2021, however the landlord had told her that its contractors did not work over that period.
3. She wanted to know whether the landlord would repaint the areas that it had replastered, whether it would pay for her curtains to be dry cleaned, for her oak unit to be repolished, and for the wood flooring that had separated and lifted to be remedied.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 8 August 2022. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint and acknowledged that this was not acceptable. It said it had received extremely high volumes of complaints over recent months and had also had staff shortages.
2. It set out the dates its contractor had attended. It said that it had installed a downpipe and replaced soffits.
3. It reiterated that it could not discuss any works that had taken place at the neighbour’s property and that it had advised the resident to claim on her contents insurance for her belongings.
4. As a publicly funded body, it was unable to offer the resident any form of compensation as it did not hold the funds in its budget to make such offers.
5. It acknowledged it should have provided an email for the resident to send photos and videos to, however, its surveyor had inspected the repairs, and it was satisfied that this would have helped to resolve her complaint.
6. The resident said its contractors had missed appointments. The landlord said there was a delay to the post-inspection as the resident had been unwell. The resident had said she would leave the side-gate open on 30 November 2021; however, she was concerned about security, so this appointment was rearranged for 4 January 2022. The landlord said it was sorry for any breakdown in communication between itself and its contractors. However, it could not accommodate the work commitments of residents.
7. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it was unable to rectify the issue on its first attempt and there had been unsatisfactory communications from members of staff.
On 23 October 2022, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She said the repairs had not been completed. She said that the contractors and the landlord had lied. She wanted the repairs to be carried out and the landlord to compensate her for damage to her personal items.
On 24 May 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman again. She wanted the landlord to replaster and repaint the damaged wall and repoint the bricks outside. She also wanted compensation for stress, inconvenience, and time.
The resident has told the Service that the landlord has not completed the replastering or the redecorating and has not repointed the bricks at the spot where the leak had come into the property. She has confirmed that the landlord has repointed above the living room window, but said the water had in fact come into the building higher up (under the bedroom window). The resident has confirmed that there have not been further leaks as the landlord has installed a new gutter and two downpipes to drain away water from the property next door.
The resident has sent several videos to the Service. These show large patches of damp on the exterior walls where the gutters overflowed. Inside the property the videos show large patches of damp on the living room wall, and the windowsills covered in towels where the resident had attempted to soak up the water leaking into the property. The videos also show damage to her curtains and blinds.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

As noted above, there is evidence that the resident has reported issues with the gutter since 2019. There is no indication that the resident made a formal complaint about this at that time however, (the Ombudsman would usually expect such issues to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 6 months of the matters arising). The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, this assessment focuses on the resident’s reports of issues with the gutter from June 2021 onwards which is 6 months before she raised a formal complaint to the landlord.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said that she felt that the landlord and its contractors had lied to her. We do not doubt the resident’s testimony, however, as this issue was not escalated via the landlord’s complaint procedure, it has not been considered in this assessment and has been noted in the background for context only. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Policies and procedures

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the resident’s home. This includes gutters and exterior walls.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents are responsible for all internal decorations and floor coverings such as laminate flooring. The repairs policy also states that where urgent repairs are needed in relation to an issue that may cause inconvenience or nuisance, the landlord will complete repairs within 3 working days.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website) states that a complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’.
The landlord’s complaint procedure states it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. The policy states that where stage 2 complaints require longer to investigate, it will allow an additional 10 working days to respond. In these instances, any extension of time will be agreed by both parties in advance.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the gutter

As noted above, the landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported a fault with her front guttering on 24 June 2021. The records show that a repair was completed on 20 August 2021. The landlord’s repairs policy, set out above, states that a repair that may cause an inconvenience or nuisance, will be classed as an urgent repair, and will be completed within 3 working days. The videos provided to the Service show a considerable amount of water coming into the property each time it rained. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this repair as urgent, therefore. The fact that it did not complete this repair for two months was a failing which would have caused the resident significant trouble and inconvenience.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported that the gutter was still leaking on 23 August 2021, 3 days after the landlord had completed the initial repair. The repair records show that the landlord’s contractor called the resident on 21 September 2021, to say they would be attending the same day, but the resident said she did not want them to attend. The contractor then closed the job. This was unreasonable. It is good practice for landlords to give residents at least 24 hours’ notice prior to attending a property to complete repairs, so that residents can ensure that they are present to give contractors access. The contractor should have arranged another appointment with the resident to carry-out the necessary repairs.
The resident reported the issue with the guttering again on 29 September 2021. The landlord scheduled this appointment for 4 October 2021. The resident had initially agreed to leave the side gate to the property open but was worried about security and decided against this. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s concerns regarding security, but the landlord would not have been responsible for any delay caused by a lack of access. The landlord’s repair records show that this appointment was rescheduled for 9 December 2021, however the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response states that the repair was completed on 4 January 2022. It is not clear from the evidence provided what the reason was for this further delay.
The landlord apologised for not providing an email for the resident to send videos and photos to, but said it was satisfied that its repairs surveyor had inspected the property, and this would have helped to resolve the resident’s complaint. The landlord acted appropriately in ensuring that its surveyor inspected the property. However, the videos taken by the resident show the extent of the water ingress when it rained, and this would not have been fully evident from an inspection alone. It would have been reasonable therefore, for the landlord to request the videos and photos from the resident, prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response to ensure it had fully considered all the available evidence. The fact that the landlord did not do so, means it will not have been able to fully assess the impact the water coming into the property will have had on the resident and may have given her the impression it was not taking her concerns seriously.
It was appropriate for the landlord to explain that it was not able to comment on the building regulations for the next-door property. This is because building control records are subject to data protection regulations and the landlord could not release personal information about the neighbours or their property without their consent.
As noted above, the resident has confirmed that the landlord has now installed a downpipe which has resolved the problem with the guttering and has also repointed the brickwork above the living room window. However, she has said that it has not repointed the brickwork underneath the bedroom window. The landlord is therefore ordered to inspect the brickwork underneath the bedroom window and carry-out any necessary repairs.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord partially addressed the resident’s concerns that contractors had not attended appointments. It said that this was due to the resident having COVID-19 on one occasion and on another due to the side gate being closed. The landlord was correct to say that it could not always schedule appointments around the resident’s work commitments. Whilst the works would inevitably cause some inconvenience to the resident, under the terms of her tenancy agreement, the resident is required to give access for repairs to be carried out. However, the resident raised concerns in her stage one complaint, that contractors had attended without having the correct information to carry out the repairs and on other occasions repairs were not carried out due to time constraints. The landlord should have investigated this aspect of the resident’s complaint, asking her to provide dates and times when this had happened, so it could raise this issue with its contractor and take appropriate action, if necessary, to prevent this from happening in future. The fact that it did not do so will have caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has not offered the resident any financial redress for its failings in its handling of the repairs. The landlord has said that it cannot do this because it is a publicly funded body. This is incorrect, the Ombudsman expects social landlords which are members of our Scheme to offer compensation when appropriate for distress and inconvenience caused by their errors. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. Where maladministration has been identified which adversely affected the resident, the guidance states that £100-£600 should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for its failings in the handling of the repairs to her guttering.

The landlord’s handling of internal remedial works and of damage to the resident’s belongings

The landlord told the resident she should claim for any damage to her belongings on her home contents insurance. However, the resident made it clear in her complaint that she had reported the issue several times to the landlord, and it was getting progressively worse. As noted above, the landlord’s records show that the resident reported a problem with the gutter 3 timesin 3 months as follows: 24 June 2021, 23 August 2021, and 29 September 2021. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its liability insurer (if it has one), to establish whether it had any liability for damage in this case. The landlord should pass on its insurer’s details to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to, for the damage to the internal decoration and the flooring as well as damage to her belongings. In the view of the Service the landlord’s failure to refer the claim sooner constitutes maladministration.
The Service asked the landlord on 28 November 2023, to confirm whether it had an internal department that dealt with insurance claims, or whether insurance claims made to it were handled by an external provider. The landlord has not responded.
If the landlord handles liability claims internally, without any involvement from an insurerand the resident were to submit a claim, she may be able to raise a new complaint with the landlord if she has concerns about the way it dealt with her claim and may be able to refer this to the Ombudsman once her complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims handled by an external insurance provider, and therefore, we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim were made to it, should claims be handled by an external provider.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2021, to say she was unhappy with its stage one complaint response. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that any expression of dissatisfaction should be treated as a complaint, therefore, the landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 25 October 2021.
On 23 November 2021, the resident explicitly stated that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint until 8 August 2022. It apologised for this delay and explained that it had received high volumes of complaints and had experienced staff shortages. However, a delay of 7 months was unreasonable and there is no evidence to suggest the landlord kept the resident informed as its complaint policy states it should. This delay will have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience as she was left waiting for a response to her concerns for longer than she should have been.
As noted above where maladministration has been identified which adversely affected the resident, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for its failings in its handling of her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the guttering.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the internal remedial works and damage to the resident’s belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 5 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Service is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. Inspect the brickwork underneath the bedroom window and carry-out any necessary repairs.
2. Pay the resident £200 for its failures in its handling of the repairs.
3. Pay the resident £200 for its failures in its handling of the associated complaint.
4. Provide the resident with details of its liability insurer (if it has one) so she can make a claim in relation to the internal remedial works and damage to her belongings, should she wish to do so. If the landlord does not have a liability insurer, it should start the process of investigating the resident’s liability claim internally and respond to her accordingly.