London Borough of Redbridge (202318336)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318336

London Borough of Redbridge

26 September 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. This complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints about its handling of roof repairs.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. Both elements of this investigation involve the landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s complaint. The investigation considers firstly the reasonableness, thoroughness, and accuracy of the landlord’s responses to the complaint. Separately, it considers the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint in accordance with its policy and procedures.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. Information from the resident and landlord shows she reported in October 2021 that some roof gutters were leaking. The landlord attended in November to inspect the issue.
  3. In late 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about service charges for the November 2021 visit. She said that following the visit the contractors had told her some fascia boards around the gutters need replacing, which required authorisation from the landlord. She explained the work had not been completed, she had been attempting to chase it up, and the leaks were continuing. In an email on 10 October 2022, she asked the landlord to treat her concerns as a complaint, given how long the repairs had remained unresolved. In a further email she explained how frustrating she had found it trying to get updates and information about the repairs, from both the contractor and landlord.
  4. The landlord did not treat the resident’s emails as a complaint. Nonetheless, it responded on 21 October 2022 to the issues she had raised. It apologised for the problems she had faced making contact with its officers and explained why its contact staff had been busier than usual recently. It said that neither its repair team nor the contractor had records of incomplete work for the roof fascias, and that the 2021 work on the gutters had been completed.
  5. There was further correspondence between the resident and landlord, in which she emphasised she had been told by the contractor about the need for repairs to the fascias. The landlord investigated again and emailed her on 4 November 2011. It explained it had discovered the contractor had indeed recommended the fascias be replaced in November 2021 and had sought authorisation from the landlord at the time. The landlord had inadvertently overlooked the request. It apologised and said it would “expedite” the repairs.
  6. The resident told the landlord she intended to seek compensation for the repair delays, given what she saw as its breach of its lease obligations. The landlord confirmed on 30 November 2022 that the work had now been authorised, and it had asked the contractors to start as soon as possible.
  7. The landlord later shared with the resident a chronology of its subsequent actions. It showed initial activity up to February 2023 in which the contractors assessed the issue as larger than initially thought, and that large scale scaffolding was needed. There is no reference to further activity until mid-June, when the resident asked for an update.
  8. The contractors informed the landlord at the end of July 2023 that they needed further time to assess the repairs and their cost. In August the landlord identified that the scale and cost of the work now meant it could not proceed without formal Section 20 (S20) consultation with the leaseholders affected by the repairs.
  9. At the end of August 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance. We asked the landlord to respond to her complaint appropriately. It spoke with her to clarify the issues of her complaint, discussing her concerns about both the time taken so far to resolve the roof repairs, and its handling of her 2022 complaint.
  10. The landlord sent its first complaint response in early September 2023. It gave a detailed timeline for the roof repair, including the year-long delay caused by its authorisation error. However, it did not acknowledge or address the delay. It apologised for not treating the resident’s 2022 complaint appropriately.
  11. The relevant S20 notifications were sent in September 2023.
  12. The resident escalated her complaint as she did not believe the landlord had addressed her concerns appropriately.
  13. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 19 September 2023. It acknowledged periods of inactivity with the roof repairs between the end of November 2022 and July 2023. It recognised the distress and worry caused to the resident, apologised, and explained how it had since improved its working practices to ensure better contractor oversight. It also explained how it had attempted several repairs without success, resulting in the conclusion that major works were needed. These actions had added to the delay resolving the roof problems. The consultation was now underway.
  14. The landlord apologised for not treating the resident’s 2022 complaint formally, and explained it had been reviewing its complaints process with staff. It offered her £200 compensation for the time taken to resolve the roof repairs, and referred the resident to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
  15. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman seeking compensation and resolution of the repairs. She has since confirmed the roof repairs were completed sometime around March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. The resident applied to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in 2024 in regard to the charges related to the roof repair major works, and the manner in which the landlord handled the S20 consultation. A hearing has been set for October 2024.
  2. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint concerning matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  3. The Tribunal is the relevant organisation to consider disputes about service charges, charges for major works, and S20 consultations. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the resident made her application to it. She has confirmed she understands the Ombudsman’s investigation will not consider issues around the costs and charges for the roof repair work.
  4. However, part of the resident’s tribunal application is that the cost and scale of the repairs would not have been so high if the landlord had resolved the original roof problems in a reasonable timeframe. Her complaint to the Ombudsman similarly centres on the time taken by the landlord to resolve the problems, albeit in regard to the inconvenience and distress that caused to her and her family, rather than the work costs. This means the Ombudsman and Tribunal are, essentially, being asked to consider the same issue of complaint.
  5. The Ombudsman will not usually consider a matter which has been, or will be considered by another organisation, tribunal, or court. As the Tribunal is being asked to consider the issue of the landlord’s repair delays, this investigation will not do so.
  6. Instead, this investigation considers the reasonableness of the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint on the matter, rather than examining its actual handling of the repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints about its handing of roof repairs

  1. Both the landlord and resident’s accounts of events following her report to it in October 2021 are consistent. They show the landlord’s contractor attended to inspect the problem promptly, addressed some issues, but identified wider problems with the fascias behind the gutters and requested authorisation from the landlord to address them. The resident was aware of what the contractor found because she had been in contact with them.
  2. Her awareness of the contractor’s findings was what led the resident to query her subsequent service charges for the work a year later in 2022. She told the landlord the work had not been completed, and clearly complained about it. The process followed by the landlord for that complaint is considered separately below.
  3. While it did not treat the complaint formally, the landlord did investigate the resident’s concerns. After initially receiving information that the relevant work had been completed, insistence from the resident led to investigating further and finding the contractor’s unaddressed authorisation request. The work was therefore a year late by the time the landlord discovered its error in early November 2022. The landlord apologised, but took no other action in acknowledgement of its significant error, other than to promise to expedite the work. Even though it was treating the complaint informally, it missed an opportunity at that time to provide remedies to the resident proportionate to both the scale of the delay, and the need for her to chase the matter with it and the contractor.
  4. After the resident came to the Ombudsman in 2023 the landlord investigated her complaint in line with its complaints process. Its first formal complaint response again identified the 1-year delay caused by its error with the fascia authorisation. It took no steps to acknowledge and remedy its failing, explain how it had happened, or show it had considered any service or process improvements.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint mainly because the landlord did not provide a meaningful response to the repairs issue, and because of what she saw as a lack of accountability in its actions. The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response there had been further delays between November 2022 and July 2023, and that this had caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. Significantly, it did not acknowledge the earlier, 1-year delay between November 2021 and November 2022.
  6. The landlord’s failure to meaningfully acknowledge the 2021-2022 repair delay in either of its complaint responses meant the only remedy it offered was the apology in its informal 2022 response to the resident’s original complaint. She had explained in her escalation complaint her stress and anxiety from ongoing leaks including her concerns about the effect on the internal structure of the property, and the persistent sound of dripping water affecting her sleep. The evidence the landlord had at hand showed the extensive involvement she had needed to have, both persisting with the landlord until it identified the original mistake, and then seeking updates and progress with the work in 2023. These factors all meant that an apology was insufficient to reasonably remedy her complaint and its failings.
  7. Repairs taking an unexpectedly long time to resolve do not always indicate a failing by a landlord. By their nature, some repairs (such as for a roof) can take a long time to identify causes and solutions, beyond any typical published repair timescales. When that happens, the reasonable approach for a landlord is to manage tenants’ timescale expectations, keep them updated, and take all reasonable steps to complete the work as soon as possible. In this case, the landlord could not manage the resident’s expectations, or provide updates during the 2021-2022 delay because it had overlooked the work authorisation needing its attention.
  8. The landlord was aware of the subsequent delay from the end of 2022 to mid-2023. The timeline of activity it provided in its first complaint response shows several occasions of the resident seeking updates. It does not show the landlord proactively providing updates, or taking other steps a landlord might reasonably take when its repairs are taking longer than estimated. Such engagement with the resident was important in this particular case, given the original delay and the landlord’s promise to prioritise the work.
  9. The landlord explained how it had changed its processes and contractor oversight arrangements in relation to the 2022-2023 delays. That was a reasonable outcome from the complaint, as it demonstrated the landlord was using it to improve its services. It also explained that some of the delay was due to the nature of the repairs, and the different solutions the contractors had attempted before concluding major work was needed. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that providing explanations for a service failure, and lessons learnt from it are key elements of good complaint handing. Accordingly, these parts of its complaint response went part of the way towards providing a reasonable remedy.
  10. The resident complained to the landlord that it had breached her lease by not completing the roof repairs. It responded by acknowledging its responsibility and explaining the steps it had been taking, and planned to take. While it recognised there had been delays, it did not agree it had breached the lease. A lease is a legal document, and not something the Ombudsman has the remit to make a binding determination on when there are disputes about it. That would be for the courts.
  11. Nonetheless, this investigation has considered the landlord’s overall role and responsibilities, of which the roof repairs form a part. Nothing in the evidence indicates the landlord denied its responsibility for the resident’s repairs. The problems arose in how it handled them. Because of that the landlord’s explanation about its obligations was reasonable.
  12. The landlord’s £200 compensation, apology, and explanation of its subsequent service improvements related to the 2022-2023 delay. These were reasonable remedies, but it did not acknowledge its lack of updates to the resident during that delay. It also did not provide a meaningful and proportionate acknowledgement or remedies for its original 2021-2022 delay. Because of that, when considered against the expectations set out in the Code the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint about these matters were not reasonable. It left major aspects of the complaint and its failings unremedied.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction with its acts, decisions, or omissions. This definition broadly matches the Code’s description of a complaint.
  2. The resident’s October 2022 complaint was clearly expressed as such. The landlord should have treated it formally in accordance with its complaint process. In its 2023 complaint responses it acknowledged that fact, apologised, and explained steps it had taken to improve its complaint service.
  3. While it did not deal with the complaint formally, it provided a response to the resident in 2022 which was broadly what a formal complaint response would look like. It explained the investigations it had taken in light of her complaint about the outstanding work, and its conclusions. In response to her dissatisfaction with its decision it made further enquiries, and discovered the contractors unanswered work authorisation request. In its early November 2022 email to her it explained the situation, apologised, and undertook to address the repairs as soon as it could. These are all steps the landlord would likely have taken if it had treated the complaint formally.
  4. The main thing missing from the landlord’s responses were explanations to the resident about escalating her complaint. There was no initial impact from that because the resident effectively escalated her complaint anyway. However, it did not explain at any stage that she could bring her complaint to the Ombudsman. Explaining how to escalate a complaint is an important Code requirement. It was of particular relevance in this case because the resident showed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s responses in an email to it in late November 2022. Bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman at that point would have been the logical next step, if she had been made aware of it.
  5. The apology and service improvement offered by the landlord for its failure to follow its complaints process and the Code were important, but did not provide a fully proportionate remedy to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints about its handling of roof repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged and remedied some of its repair delay failings. However, it failed in its responses to acknowledge or remedy the significant delay caused by its failing in 2021-2022, or its poor communication with the resident about the 2022-2023 delay.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its poor handling of the resident’s 2022 complaint, but its remedies were not proportionate to the impact on the resident, and the delay caused to her bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings found in this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident:
    1. £550 for its poor responses to the resident’s complaint (this is inclusive of the £200 previously offered).
    2. £125 for its poor complaint handling.
  2. Evidence of payment must be provided to the Service within 4 weeks of this report.