London Borough of Hounslow (202329853)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329853

London Borough of Hounslow

1 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Enquiries about major works.
    2. Reports of roof leaks.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord, a local authority, since 2003. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette.
  2. In March 2022, the resident reported a roof leak that meant water was coming in to the property when it rained. The landlord agreed to clear blocked gutters, which it believed was the cause of the issue, and completed this in July 2022.
  3. In October 2022, the resident reported that the roof leak was ongoing, had worsened and was causing damp. The landlord carried out inspections in October and November 2022 and agreed to clear the gutters, which were blocked again. The landlord said it attempted to do this on several occasions over the next 3 months but was unable to due to weather conditions and access issues.
  4. In May 2023, the landlord issued a section 20 notice to the resident for major works at the block. The following month, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about major works and its handling of the roof leak. He said the landlord had first proposed the major works in 2018, via a section 20 notice, but had not progressed them. This delay meant he would incur additional costs for the works to go ahead now, as opposed to the costs in 2018. The landlord responded on 14 September 2023 and said it could not deal with his concerns as a complaint because the major works were subject to a statutory consultation process, which sat outside of its complaints policy.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service in November 2023. He said he wanted the landlord to fix the roof leak, which was ongoing, and compensate him for its delay in doing so. He wanted the landlord to only charge him the costs for major works quoted in 2018.
  6. The same month, the landlord identified that water entering the property was caused by a roof leak. This was repaired in March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has reported that some of the issues began in 2017. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42.c of the Scheme).
  2. In this case, the resident raised his formal complaint in June 2023. Therefore, the scope of this investigation has covered events 12 months prior to this. Anything that occurred before June 2022, has been considered for context but not assessed as part of the investigation.
  3. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. Therefore, the following matters fall outside the scope of this investigation:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the roof leak between September 2023 and March 2024. This period was after the landlord declined to consider the complaint in September 2023; meaning it has not been given the opportunity to assess its handling of the roof leak for this period. This investigation has assessed the landlord’s handling of the roof leak between June 2022 and September 2023.
    2. A second complaint made by the resident in April 2024, regarding the landlord’s handling of major works that began in 2023. This complaint has been responded to at stage 1 of the landlord’s internal process. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident escalated this complaint, or that a stage 2 response has been provided, and so it has not exhausted the landlord’s internal procedure.
    3. New concerns raised by the resident, with this Service in June 2024, regarding the landlord’s handling of the roof and boiler replacements. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that these issues have been considered by the landlord’s internal complaints procedure at any stage.
  4. The resident can raise any of the above matters directly with the landlord, if he would like them to be considered under its formal complaints procedure, if not done so already.
  5. As part of his complaint to the landlord in June 2023, the resident included concerns about information contained within the section 20 notice received in May 2023, including the cost of the proposed major works. These concerns fall outside the scope of this investigation as they formed part of a statutory consultation process, and would be more appropriately addressed via the First Tier Tribunal (reflected at paragraph 42.j of the Scheme).
  6. The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Enquiries about major works

  1. The resident has said that the landlord first proposed major works at the block in 2018 via a section 20 notice, but these were not progressed at the time. The events of 2018 fall outside the scope of this investigation for the reasons given in paragraphs 9 and 10 above. However, the Ombudsman has assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns raised more recently in relation to this.
  2. When a landlord proposes major works via a section 20 notice, it is not legally required to progress the works at that time. In some circumstances, it may be reasonable that the works do not go ahead. In these cases, the landlord should ensure that it keeps residents updated and respond to any concerns raised.
  3. The resident said he made enquiries about major works in July 2022 and February 2023; however, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this, or what, if any response the landlord provided. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to comment further on these specific actions.
  4. At a residents meeting in April 2023, the landlord noted that a query was raised about whether it would pay compensation for the delay to major works being carried out as costs had risen since the original proposal. From the evidence provided, it is not clear whether this was raised by the resident. However, an action was set for the landlord to provide a response to all occupants of the block, which would have included the resident. The landlord has advised that there is no evidence this was done.
  5. When the resident raised a similar concern as part of his complaint in June 2023, the landlord again, failed to respond to this point and to date there is no evidence that it has provided a response. This amounts to maladministration and has left the resident with unanswered questions for an extended period of time. While the Ombudsman has not taken a view on the substantive complaint (whether the landlord should have delayed the works or should now be responsible for the increased costs) it finds that the landlord should have done more to address the resident’s concerns.
  6. As a result, an order is made for the landlord to provide a written response to the resident about incurring additional costs for the major works to go ahead in 2023/24, as opposed to the costs in 2018, along with an explanation as to why it did not progress the works in 2018. In addition, the landlord should apologise to the resident and pay him £200 compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Reports of a roof leak

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof and gutters, under the terms of the lease, which says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. When the resident reported the roof leak in March 2022, the landlord raised a works order, which was subsequently completed the following month; however, there were no notes to confirm the outcome. The resident said the landlord inspected the property on 26 April 2022, but the landlord has been unable to provide evidence of this inspection. The landlord records are not clear on what happened in respect of this job, which is a concern. An order is made for the landlord to review how it records the outcome of works orders and provide guidance to staff on this.
  3. In May and June 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update on the roof leak on at least 5 occasions, before an update was provided, which included that the job had been closed. The lack of response to the repeated contacts amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  4. The landlord subsequently told the resident that the job had been closed because it had been referred on to a new member of staff to progress. While that may have been the landlord’s process, it should have proactively told the resident this, rather than waiting for him to chase an update. Being told the job had been closed caused the resident unnecessary worry and frustration as the leak was ongoing.
  5. The landlord agreed to clear blocked gutters on 8 June 2022. This was a reasonable step to take as the resident had indicated that he believed this was the cause of the issue. The landlord’s repairs policy said that this job would be classified as a routine repair, which it would complete within 20 working days. As this particular job required scaffolding, it was understandable that it might take slightly longer than the 20 working day timescale.
  6. The job was completed on or around 7 July 2022, which was 22 working days after it had agreed to complete this work. While this was only slightly over the 20 working day timescale, it was 73 working days after the resident had first reported the roof leak. This was significantly over the committed timescale and the evidence shows that the resident had to chase the landlord repeatedly for the matter to be progressed. This delay amounts to maladministration and caused frustration for the resident, whose property was being damaged by the ongoing leak.
  7. After the gutters were cleared, the landlord carried out a further inspection on 5 August 2022, to confirm that the leak had stopped. This was sensible and showed that it took the matter seriously; however, this was done in the height of Summer when the level of rainfall is generally lower. The landlord should have considered deferring this inspection until the Autumn, when the level of rainfall would increase so it could properly assess whether the leak had stopped. Its failure to do this meant that the resident had to re-report the leak in October 2022.
  8. Following an inspection on 27 October 2022, the landlord noted that it carried out a visual check of the roof and confirmed it was in good condition. The property is a 1st floor maisonette, which means the building is 4 storeys high in total. While the resident’s property can be accessed via an external balcony on the 2nd storey, this would not allow a clear view over the entire roof and so the landlord could not have done a thorough check of the roof during this inspection.
  9. The landlord should have done more at this time to investigate the roof leak. Instead, it concluded that the issue was caused by condensation but it had not properly investigated all possible causes and so this was a premature conclusion. The landlord’s failure to thoroughly investigate the cause of the leak at this time was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue sooner, and amounts to maladministration.
  10. From October 2022, the resident asked the landlord repeatedly to check the roof via the attic in a neighbouring property. The landlord replied in November 2022 that it was unable to do this; but did not give any explanation as to why. This appeared to be a sensible suggestion which would not have incurred additional costs to the landlord and could have allowed it to identify the roof leak sooner. This was another missed opportunity by the landlord.
  11. The evidence indicates that the landlord carried out an inspection in November 2022. However, when asked for a record of this, the landlord has been unable to provide this, which is a concern. An order has been made below for the landlord to review how it records inspections and provide staff guidance on this.
  12. Following the inspection in November 2022, the landlord said it had a plan of action to address the leaks and the first step was to clear the blocked gutters at the front of the property. Where the cause of a leak is unknown, it is reasonable that a landlord takes a step by step approach to resolving this. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord started with this action.
  13. However, the landlord did not set out what further actions would be taken if this was unsuccessful in resolving the issue. Even when the resident specifically asked for this in February 2023, the landlord failed to provide it. This caused the resident to lose faith that the landlord would follow through to resolve the issue.
  14. The landlord arranged to clear the blocked guttering on 12 December 2022, but this could not go ahead as the guttering was frozen. This was an unavoidable delay and not one that was attributable to the landlord. However, the resident only became aware of this after he chased the landlord for an update later that month. The landlord should have proactively told the resident this, rather than making him incur time and trouble in chasing this up. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
  15. When the landlord reattended in January 2023 to clear the gutters, it said this could not go ahead as it needed a cherry picker for access. The landlord had inspected the property on more than one occasion and had cleared the gutters previously, so should have been aware of what was required to do this. Its failure to properly plan the job, led to a further delay and amounts to maladministration.
  16. The landlord said it made several attempts to clear the gutters in February 2023 using a cherry picker, but could not do so as there were parked cars on the road that prevented the cherry picker from being able to get to the block. While this further delayed the works, this was again, not attributable to the landlord.
  17. The landlord said it was seeking support from the local authority regarding the parked vehicles, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. Similarly, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether it could complete the works in any other way, for example, using scaffolding as it had done in the past.
  18. Between February and April 2023, the resident made contact with the landlord on at least 4 occasions to chase this up, but there is no record it ever responded to any of these contacts. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
  19. By the time the resident raised his complaint in June 2023, the leak had been ongoing for at least 15 months. While the landlord took some action to investigate and address the leak over the period of this investigation, it did not do enough and there were several missed opportunities to identify and resolve this issue sooner. This resulted in the property being damaged, including damp and mould building up.
  20. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the roof leak between June 2022 and September 2023, amounts to maladministration. Orders have been made below for it to apologise to the resident for its handling of this issue, and pay him £500 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident’s complaint submitted to the landlord on 12 June 2023, included concerns about information contained within the section 20 notice served in May 2023, including the cost of the proposed major works. For the same reasons this matter falls outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation (see paragraph 13 above), it was reasonable that these specific concerns fell outside the scope of the landlord’s complaints policy.
  2. However, the resident also complained about other issues, including the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and its failure to progress major works in 2018. These issues were not part of the formal section 20 consultation process and so the landlord should have considered them as part of a formal complaint.
  3. This was a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling that amounts to maladministration. This failure has enabled the Ombudsman to investigate these matters, despite them not having exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme).
  4. The resident’s complaint was very detailed and clearly set out his concerns. It is unclear how or why the landlord determined that all the issues related to the section 20 consultation process, as this was evidently not the case. This suggests that the landlord either did not properly review the complaint or an error was made. Either way, this is a failure and was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident sooner. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on exceptions to the complaints process, in line with its current complaints policy.
  5. In more recent communication, the landlord has told this Service that it dealt with the resident’s contact in June 2023 as a service request, rather than a complaint, as it wanted to resolve the matter quickly. This is a contradiction to what it told the resident at the time and there is no evidence that it referred the issues on to other departments to resolve, as was committed in its complaints policy at the time.
  6. The landlord has provided conflicting information to the resident and this Service about how it dealt with the complaint submitted in June 2023. Either way, the resident was clear in his communication that he wanted the matters raised as a formal complaint and set out details of how he had raised these issues with the landlord previously. Therefore, the landlord should have dealt with the issues as a formal complaint.
  7. The landlord has told this Service that it did not receive the resident’s complaint submitted on 12 June 2023, or 2 subsequent emails from him in July 2023, chasing the response. From the records provided, all 3 of these emails were sent to the correct email address for the landlord’s complaints team, which was the same email address it used to respond to the complaint on 14 September 2023.
  8. The resident has also provided a delivery receipt for the initial complaint, confirming it was delivered successfully. It is unclear how these 3 emails were not received by the landlord, as the evidence shows they were sent and delivered to the correct email address.
  9. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in September 2023, which was 3 months after he initially raised it; and only after he had chased this up on at least 2 occasions in July 2023 and once in August 2023. As the landlord’s response was a refusal to consider the complaint, there was no set timescale for this to be provided. However, the time taken to provide the response was too long and amounts to maladministration.
  10. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £300 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Major works enquiries.
    2. Reports of roof leaks.
    3. Formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written response to the resident’s concern about incurring additional costs for the major works to go ahead in 2023/24, as opposed to the costs in 2018; along with an explanation as to why it did not progress the works in 2018.
    2. Apologise to the resident for its response to his major works enquiries, reports of roof leaks between June 2022 and September 2023 and complaint handling.
    3. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation, made up of £200 for its response to his major works enquiries, £500 for its response to his reports of roof leaks between June 2022 and September 2023 and £300 for its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Review how it records the outcome of works orders and provide guidance to staff on this.
    2. Review how it records inspections and provide staff guidance on this.
    3. Provide staff training to all complaint handlers on exceptions to the complaints process, in line with its current complaints policy.
  4. Evidence of compliance with the above orders to be provided, to this Service, within 8 weeks.