London Borough of Redbridge (202207531)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207531

London Borough of Redbridge

28 November 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to resident’s roof.
    2. The landlord handling of repairs to the resident’s fencing.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported that there was water leaking into her bedroom in November 2020. The landlord raised a repair order and undertook some interim repairs in December 2020. It concluded that the roof may need a renewal and asked a surveyor to inspect it. The surveyor attended in February 2021, and sent a request to the landlord’s asset management team (AMT) to approve extensive works to the roof. After further contact from the resident, in June 2021 a surveyor attended the property to inspect the guttering, fascia and a pipe that was also leaking. It was noted that there was damp in the property as a result, and that the roof needed replacing.
  3. The resident raised a secondary issue regarding her fence in June 2021, stating that it was rotten and needed replacing. The landlord attended the property within two days of the report, but removed the incorrect fence. It attended again in the same month and removed the correct panel, but did not replace the fencing.
  4. On 7 July 2021 the resident chased up the roof repair, detailing the contacts she had with the landlord about this, and stating ‘My bedroom was so cold in the winter due to the dampness and the mattress and head base of my bed started to stain due to the constant damp. There is also damp spreading from the ceiling down the chimney breast wall. The water also started to stain the ceiling on the room below.’
  5. On 7 July 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She stated that due to the water ingress from the leaking roof, there were extensive issues with damp, as well as water staining on the walls and ceilings of her home. She also explained that her bed mattress and newly laid laminate flooring in the main bedroom had all been damaged by the damp, and other items had been affected by mould She said that she had been constantly chasing up the matter, with the landlord failing to progress the repair. The resident additionally complained about the delay replacing her fence panel, and stated that she felt the landlord had given her misleading information regarding its replacement.
  6. In its stage one response, the landlord explained that the delay to the works was due to waiting for approval from its AMT. It apologised for initially removing the wrong fence panel and for any inconvenience caused to the resident. It chased the AMT for a response and arranged an appointment to measure for a new fence panel on 26 July 2021. The resident escalated her complaint in August 2021, as she still had not heard from the relevant departments. She stated that the damage sustained to her property was increasing significantly due to the delays.
  7. In its response in September 2021, the landlord apologised to the resident, acknowledging that the service she had received was not up to its usual standard. It informed the resident that it would send out another surveyor to rectify the issues.
  8. The resident contact the Ombudsman in July 2022. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that the repairs to her roof and fence were completed in April 2022. She has explained that due to the delay in repairs, she had to live in poor conditions, and many of her belongings were damaged by the water ingress. As an outcome the resident would like compensation for rent paid between October 2020- April 2022 for four of her rooms that were uninhabitable. She would also like compensation for damaged items and for the extra expense of running dehumidifiers to dry out the property.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident states that as a result of the outstanding repairs her physical and mental health suffered. While the Ombudsman was sorry to hear this, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the resident’s health.
  2. In addition, she reports damage to personal belongings, including her mattress and sofa, and states that she could not use four rooms in the property due to the leak and associated damp. She seeks compensation from the landlord for rent paid between October 2020-April 2022 as four rooms in the property were uninhabitable, for damage to personal items including a mattress and sofa, and for energy costs incurred as a result of using a dehumidifier to dry the property out.
  3. However, other than reference to staining to the mattress and damage to flooring, these are not matters that were raised with the landlord during the formal complaint, and no associated request for compensation was made. This means that the landlord has not had the opportunity to assess and respond to the claims that the delay to the roof repairs led to parts of the property becoming uninhabitable, incurred additional energy costs, and damaged the resident’s belongings, or consider compensation for these matters. As such, these matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. This is in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to 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. It is open to the resident to make a fresh formal complaint about these issues, and refer the matter to the Ombudsman should she remain dissatisfied with the outcome, and/or consider making a claim via the landlord’s liability insurers.
  4. However, this investigation can consider the time, trouble, inconvenience and distress the resident has described the delays with the repair caused her.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof and the level of compensation offered.

  1. The resident’s tenancy handbook states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building. This includes roofs, walls, gutters and outside pipes. Additionally, the landlord’s repairs handbook states that it will aim to attend and complete responsive repairs within 28 calendar days. It is worth noting that where major works are required (such as a roof replacement), they are likely to take more time to complete in comparison to routine repairs, due to their more extensive and costly nature.
  2. After the resident’s initial report of water leaking into her home, the landlord attended within the timescales stated above. It acted reasonably by inspecting the issue and undertaking some interim repairs while waiting for a surveyor to assess the full extent of the damage. As the works required were extensive, the surveyor acted appropriately by asking permission from the AMT for either a total renewal, or, if that was not possible (due to budgetary constraints), for extensive repairs to be completed.
  3. Although major works can often take more time to complete a landlord should still progress these in a reasonable and timely manner, manage or follow up on the status of repairs, and to provide updates to the resident. In–line with good customer service standards the landlord would be expected to explain any protracted delays to a resident.
  4. In this case, the landlord did not handle the resident’s repairs appropriately, as there is little evidence that it manged or progressed the works in a timely manner, and did not keep the resident updated on the status of her works. Instead, the resident was required to continually contact the landlord for updates on her works throughout the process. Although the landlord did attempt to follow up with its AMT after the resident’s complaint in July 2021, there is no evidence to suggest that it gained a response. Despite reporting the repairs in November 2020, the various findings of surveyors, such as the June 2021 inspection, and completing the landlord’s complaint procedure in September 2021, the resident’s repairs were not completed until April 2022. This was a significant and wholly unreasonable delay, with no full explanation provided, and constitutes maladministration on the part of the landlord. The resident has described how this delay adverse affected her, with an impact on her living conditions and time and trouble taken in pursuing the landlord to resolve.  
  5. The landlord’s complaint policy states that when identifying a mistake or problem, it will attempt to put things right. It also says that it will acknowledge and apologise for any faults that it identifies and take steps to avoid these mistakes from reoccurring. It says that in some cases it may be appropriate to offer financial recompense to recognise time and trouble taken to resolve an issue or for any distress that may have been caused due to incorrect action or failure to take action.
  6. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had received a substandard service in regard to her repairs. However, it did not take responsibility for this failing, stating instead that this was a fault of the AMT, which had been delayed in approving the resident’s works. The landlord did not acknowledge its lack of communication or recognise that it had neglected to keep the resident updated throughout this process.
  7. The final response was extremely brief and failed to address the issue in anyway, simply stating, ‘I have asked a surveyor to attend and remedy these problems , I understand these have been ongoing for some time and I apologise for this.’ While it upheld the complaint, it offered no other resolution to the situation, and did not recognise that surveyors had already attended and the work they had advised was outstanding.
  8. To be in line with its own complaint’s policy, the landlord should have taken responsibility for its failings, and taken steps to rectify the resident’s repair issues. It also should have explained why the delays occurred, and liaised with the other departments in its organisation to prevent a reoccurrence of the same issues. As the resident expended significant time and energy in pursuing her repairs, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to have considered offering compensation to the resident, in recognition of the distress and discomfort this issue had caused her. It may also have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered offering compensation for more tangible outgoings, such as the increase in the resident’s electricity bill, due to the use of dehumidifiers to dry out her home, although the Ombudsman acknowledges that no claim had been made by the resident in this regard.
  9. Further, there is no indication that the landlord ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case: Given that it accepted that there had been failings in its handling of the repair, it should have taken steps to identify the cause of these, and taken action to prevent a recurrence.
  10. Overall, the landlord did not fully address its errors in its complaint response, and did not attempt to put the resident back into the position she would have been, but for those mistakes.
  11. To ‘put things right’, an order for compensation is made below. In-line with this Service’s remedies guidance, various factors are taken into account when calculating compensation amounts. The resident was impacted significantly by the delays to repairs, as her home was affected by the leak for over a year and a half, and she was required to chase up the landlord on numerous occasions to have this addressed. The remedies guidance sets out that amounts of £100 to £700 are appropriate where there have been failings, but these have not had a permanent impact on the resident. Given the length of time the repair was outstanding in this case, an amount at the top of this range is appropriate.
  12. A further order is made to ensure that the lanrd can ‘learn from outcomes’ in this case.

 

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s fence.

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook (as stated above) requires the landlord to attend and complete routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord attended the resident’s property within two days of the resident reporting the issue, and attempted to remove the broken fence panel. Unfortunately, it removed the wrong panel, and so reattended within the above timeframes and removed the correct panel. A replacement fence panel is likely to be outside the remit of routine repairs and so the length of time to undertake the works could be expected to be longer than the stated 28 days. However, the resident has explained that the landlord took ten months to replace the panel, which is an unreasonable amount of time.
  2. Again, if there are delays to repairs, the landlord is expected to update the resident and to explain any reasons for the delay. However, the resident was required to repeatedly chase the landlord to gain an update. In its stage one response in July 2021, the landlord explained that the delay to replacing the fence panel was due to it experiencing staffing difficulties. It promised that when its operative returned from annual leave it would order the materials for the fence and book an appointment. However, the resident has stated that the renewal did not take place until April 2022. The landlord did not provide an adequate explanation for why such an extensive delay to the resident’s repairs occurred. This is failing in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the repairs to the resident’s roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s fencing.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £750, broken down as follows:
    1. £700 in recognition of the time and trouble, inconvenience and distress caused as a result of the delays to the repairs to the roof.
    1. £50, in recognition of her time and energy expended in pursuing the repairs to the fence. 
  2. Also within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should conduct a review of the handling of the roof repairs, to determine the cause of the failings in resolving this in a timely manner, and in communicating with the resident, and set out what action has/will be taken to prevent a recurrence. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should supply the resident with the details of its liability insurance provider.