London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202115485)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115485

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

23 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of water ingress caused by faulty guttering;
    2. The resident’s insurance claim covering the resultant damage; 
    3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident holds a lease for a second-floor flat, which began in June 2009. The resident lives at the flat with his mother and son.
  2. The resident has explained the building is grade two listed, which means internal works need to meet regulations and can add to the cost of completing them.
  3. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
  4. The resident pays into a buildings insurance policy, selected by the landlord. Under the policy, specified “insured perils” are covered, and other items listed under “general exclusions” are not covered. Damage caused by mould and fungus falls under general exclusions, and defective roofs, drains, gutters and downpipes are covered only if they come about due to the impact of an insured peril.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the division of responsibilities between itself and leaseholders. The policy specifies that the landlord is responsible for repairs to walls facing external or communal areas, including where there is penetrative or rising damp, and for maintaining communal roofs and external gutters, pipes and drains.
  6. The policy specifies that the landlord will redecorate following repairs where it has “an obligation”, and also in “exceptional circumstances entirely at [its] discretion.” It will always make good any surfaces affected by its repairs, to allow residents to redecorate.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timescales for response as 10 working days for stage one, and 20 working days for stage two. In both cases it says it will provide a further update within 10 working days, should the complaint not be fully resolved at the point of response.

Summary of Events

  1. On 24 May 2021 the resident contacted a member of staff at the landlord to report a leak to the guttering above his property, which had led to water ingress to his property. The resident told the landlord that “on bad days the internal walls [of the flat] are wet”, and explained that his wallpaper had fallen away due to the moisture, the original stone coving had been damaged and areas of plasterwork had blown. He told the landlord he had observed fungus and was worried it could be harmful to his health, and that one of the rooms was unusable due to mould. The resident asked the landlord to inspect the guttering, and whether he could claim “an allowance” towards repairs from the landlord’s building insurance policy.
  2. On 27 May 2021 the member of staff responded, and advised that repairs should always be reported to the landlord’s call centre or via its online repairs service. However, the staff member had been able to confirm a repair job had already been booked in for the gutter and downpipe, and the landlord had ordered scaffold to facilitate this. The resident was advised to phone back in to the call centre “over the next few weeks” to confirm whether the job had been completed, and that he would be able to make a claim through his building insurance once the repair had been completed. He was provided with the associated repair reference number to give to the insurance company, along with its contact details.
  3. The landlord’s repairs log shows this repair job had been raised on 8 March 2021, after a neighbouring resident reported damp behind the downpipe from the gutter, and water ingress due to a hole in their wall. The landlord’s notes show it thought pointing and water may be needed to the wall behind the downpipe.
  4. On 9 June 2021 the resident informed the landlord that the buildings insurance company had determined the leak began before his policy was taken out, and advised he would need to contact the previous building insurers instead. The resident requested the previous company’s contact details from the landlord.
  5. On 2 July 2021, another of the resident’s neighbours reported the roofing and gutters were “broken”, overflowed when it rained, and had caused water ingress to their flat.
  6. The repairs log shows that the repairs raised in March 2021, in response to the first neighbour’s reports of damp behind the external downpipe and water ingress through their wall, and with the repair reference the resident had been provided with for his insurance claim, were marked as finished on 15 July 2021.
  7. On 21 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord, and reported:
    1. There had been no “correction” to the leaking rainwater pipes at the front of the building.
    2. He wanted to claim for loss of use of one of his rooms, as it had been unusable for over seven months, and asked how he could do this.
    3. The walls were “wet to the touch” when it rained, “covered in mould”, and a health hazard.
    4. He is a qualified building surveyor and could not carry out work to rectify the inside of his flat until the external downpipe and pointing to the building had been rectified by the landlord.
    5. He had contacted the building insurers two-to-three weeks previously, and had not received a response. 
  8. The resident also took out a bridging loan in July 2021, and has explained this was to enable him to carry out repairs to his property ahead of selling it.
  9. On 4 August 2021 the same member of staff who had emailed the resident on 27 May 2021, sent a response to his email of 21 July 2021. The member of staff reiterated their advice that it was best to contact the landlord’s call centre for updates on repairs, and confirmed that they could see a job had been raised for scaffold to be erected and the rainwater pipe to be renewed. The member of staff said they would be in touch when they had an update, and asked the resident for the name of the person he had spoken to at the insurers, so they could ask them to contact the resident.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 August 2021, expressed his dissatisfaction with its response to date, and set out his intention to log a complaint the following day. He told the landlord that he had had to remove the carpets and underlay from the front living room and the front bedroom due to mould and a very bad smell”. He reiterated that he was a qualified building surveyor and advised “the problem could be as simple as a blockage in the guttering.”
  11. The landlord’s records show it opened a stage one complaint on 10 August 2021, after the resident called in. It logged the complaint against the repair reference given to the job raised by the second of the resident’s neighbours on 2 July 2021. The landlord noted that the resident wanted:
    1. To get the repairs for his living room and bedroom done privately;
    2. To liaise with the landlord’s insurance company for the external repairs;
    3. To speak to a surveyor and for a surveyor to carry out an inspection.
  12. The landlord’s complaint records show the resident requested a call back on 23 August 2021. The landlord confirmed with its roofing contractor that it would erect scaffolding on 27 August 2021, and the downpipe would be renewed. The landlord tried calling the resident and left a message, and the complaint was then marked as resolved.
  13. The resident has explained that he put his property on the market in mid-August 2021, and carried out a “full-refurb” in late August and early September 2021.
  14. The landlord’s repairs log shows that on 8 September 2021 work was carried out to clear the gutters and replace the downpipe, and the repair job reported by the resident’s neighbour on 2 July 2021 was marked as complete.
  15. The resident has explained he took his property off the market after a subsequent period of heavy rainfall caused further damage. The resident reports this cost him £8000 in further repairs, and £12,000 for breaching the terms of the bridging loan. Further, the resident has explained he was unable to proceed with the purchase of his “dream property” as a result of not selling his flat.
  16. On 16 September 2021 the building insurance provider advised the resident it would not cover the damage caused by the damp in his flat, because the landlord had confirmed it resulted from a defective rain water pipe”. The building insurer told the resident that the landlord was responsible for the maintenance of the rain water pipe, and as such it had deemed the damage to be caused by an uninsured peril.
  17. The landlord’s records show it opened a new stage one complaint on 5 October 2021, and noted the resident had asked it for an update on the repairs to the building and reported that water was “still running into his property”. It is not clear why a new complaint was opened on this date, but the landlord’s records indicate that it had re-evaluated its correspondence with the resident on 4 August 2021, and decided the matters should be dealt with under its complaints process. Its repairs log also show it opened a repair job for its roofing contractor on this date, labelled it as associated with a complaint, and asked its contractor to inspect, investigate and repair the leak affecting the resident’s flat.
  18. Later on 5 October 2021, the landlord issued a final stage one response to the new complaint it had opened. The landlord:
    1. Confirmed it had booked a contractor to investigate and rectify the roof, and the contractor would be in touch with the resident to discuss the issues he had experienced and arrange an appointment;
    2. Advised this concluded stage one of the complaint;
    3. Specified a point of contact if the resident had any questions regarding the matter;
    4. Gave details on how to escalate the complaint to the next stage if the resident wished;
    5. Advised details of its complaints policy could be found on its website;
    6. Apologised that the resident had had to raise a complaint to get his concerns addressed;
    7. Provided contact details for the Housing Ombudsman.
  19. On 7 October 2021 the resident reiterated the costs he had incurred and challenged the landlord’s closure of his complaint without having addressed these. He told the landlord the building insurers would not cover the cost of damage caused by “the defective rainwater pipe”, and asked who would. He explained he had expected someone to visit to see the problems he was having, rather than “making assumptions”.
  20. On 12 October 2021 the landlord responded by email, and advised:
    1. Compensation for damaged goods, belongings, or health fell outside the remit of its complaints process;  
    2. Liability issues were subject to insurance investigation and followed financial claim protocols;
    3. The landlord’s complaints team could not handle any matter regarding a potential claim for damages, and any decision by an insurer would supersede any decision made within the complaints process.
  21. The resident responded on 13 October 2021. He reminded the landlord the decision made by the building insurers was not that there was not a claim to be made, but that the damage had resulted from a failure by the landlord to keep the building properly maintained. He reiterated his intention to submit a liability claim, and that he needed details of where to send this.
  22. In response, also on 13 October 2021, the landlord sent an email in which it provided the resident with the email address to send his claim to, and asked him to provide:
    1. Photos of the damage;
    2. Estimates/ Invoices/ Receipts of costs incurred;
    3. The date and time of the alleged loss/ damage;
    4. The location and address of the alleged loss/ damage;
    5. Details of precisely how the loss/ damage occurred;
    6. An explanation of why he held the landlord responsible for the loss/ damage.
  23. On 20 October 2021, the landlord’s roofing contractor requested the resident’s contact details, regarding the repair job that had been raised on 5 October 2021. The landlord’s records suggest this was not immediately supplied, and also show the contractor had used the wrong flat number in its email heading, despite the resident’s flat being specified when the landlord raised the job.
  24. The landlord’s records show the resident emailed and called on 25 October 2021, unhappy not to have received a response to his email of 7 October 2021. In its conversation with him, the landlord advised the resident it could take up to 15 working days to get a response to his email, but it could see he had been sent a stage one response and could escalate his complaint to stage two if he wished. The resident then sent an email to confirm he did want his complaint to be escalated to stage two, and expected a response within 21 days. He reminded the landlord he would take legal action regarding the matter.
  25. The landlord’s contractor asserts that it tried to contact the resident in November 2021 and had not been able to gain access, but it is not clear which address it had tried.
  26. The resident chased a response to his stage two complaint on 6 December 2021. The landlord sent him an acknowledgement the same day, and advised it was handling a high volume of stage two complaints at the time, which had impacted timescales. It told him it would send a further acknowledgement once the complaint was assigned to an investigator, and then a decision would follow. The landlord did not provide an indication of how long this might take.
  27. The resident asked the landlord for an update regarding his complaint on 10 and 11 January 2022.
  28. Also on 11 January 2022, the landlord supplied the resident’s name, phone number and email address to two individuals at the roofing contractor. It asked that contact was made, and that it was notified if there was no access given. It did not correct the street address the contractor had used in the email heading.
  29. The landlord responded to the resident on 12 January 2022. It reiterated the high volumes of complaints it was handling and advised it would provide a stage two response in “due course”.
  30. After intervention by the Housing Ombudsman, on 15 March 2022 the landlord notified the resident it would begin the investigation of his stage two complaint. It emailed the roofing contractor and asked if the works had been completed.
  31. On 18 March 2022 the resident sent the landlord a comprehensive email setting out the basis of his stage two complaint, the effect of the experience on him, and confirmed that whilst contractors had attended and carried out works, they had not been effective and he was still experiencing leaks when it rained. He sent some photos to the landlord to support his account.
  32.  The landlord issued its final stage two complaint response to the resident on 23 March 2022. It confirmed:
    1. It had spoken to the resident during its stage two complaint investigation between 15 March 2022 and 23 March 2022. The resident had told it the roofing contractor had attended and left the drainpipe unconnected, which had exacerbated the damp present in his property. The landlord had advised the resident in this call that the cost of damaged property would need to be claimed through its insurance team, as this was not covered by its compensation policy;
    2. Its roofing contractor had advised it tried calling the resident three times since November 2021, and attended his property once, with no answer. The landlord had now booked in an appointment for the contractor to attend on 29 March 2022;
    3. The landlord reiterated that any claims for damages to property, belongings or health would need to be reviewed by its insurance team. It offered £3000 compensation comprised of:
      1. £100 for distress
      2. £150 for inconvenience
      3. £250 for failures under right to repair
      4. £50 for the time taken to respond to the stage two complaint
      5. £2450 for the loss of use of two rooms
    4. This concluded stage two of its complaint process, and the resident could contact the Housing Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied. The landlord provided the Ombudsman’s contact details.
  33. The resident contacted the landlord and the Ombudsman on 24 March 2022, and referred to the stage two response he had received:
    1. He explained he was “lost” with how the landlord was thinking, and felt it had missed the fact his property had “been damaged by external elements” that were the responsibility of the landlord to maintain, as he had been advised by the building insurers;
    2. He could not understand why the landlord wanted to pay compensation for inconvenience, but not for damages;
    3. He explained he had provided what he considered sufficient proof that the damage in his property was caused by water from the external gutters of the building, and added a request that the landlord speak to his neighbours for an “unbiased view”, because he understood their properties to have been affected as well;
    4. He felt the landlord had failed to address the contractor’s failure to fix the guttering correctly. He referenced a photo he had sent of a disconnected downpipe, which he explained had been left detached for weeks. Further, he asserted it was a “lie” that the contractor had been sent to see him on three occasions. He pointed out he had sent a photo of the contractor on the scaffold, taken through his window, and that the contractor made “no mention” of wanting to speak to him; 
    5. The resident advised he was still experiencing water ingress when it rained.
  34. The resident sent another email to the landlord on 28 March 2022, and made it clear he did not accept the landlord’s offer of £3000 compensation. He also reported the scaffold had been taken down, and was therefore worried his time would be wasted if he stayed in for the roofing contractor’s visit because it would not be able to reach the guttering with a ladder. He queried what would be done at the visit, and whether a surveyor would also attend. He explained his main concern remained the damages caused, and asked what steps had been taken to pass his details to the landlord’s insurance team.
  35. The contractor did visit on 29 March 2022, and the resident sent an update email to confirm this to the landlord. The resident reported he had shown the contractor a video of rain water running onto the wall, which he wanted the landlord to view. He advised the contractor had agreed the water ingress was caused by the water flowing from the gutters, and thought the disconnected gutter was “a disgrace”. The contractor told him it had ordered scaffold and would correct the work to the guttering. The resident asked the landlord what would now be done about compensation for the work he had to carry out inside his home, and how long it would take for the landlord to pass his details to its insurance department. He finished the email by reminding the landlord the water was still entering his home.  
  36. The landlord asserts that its contractor dealt with “trees and overgrown vegetation” associated with the issues the resident had reported in March 2022.
  37. On 20 April 2022 the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s claim for damages under its insurance. The landlord confirmed it had passed his details to its public liability insurer, which would handle his claim. It requested that he liaise directly with the insurance company, which it expected to contact him within two days.
  38. On 9 June 2022 the resident reported that water from the external pipework from the roof had penetrated the internal areas of his home again. He advised he was told the matter would be dealt with immediately, and scaffold had been erected over one and a half months earlier, but nothing had been done since. The resident advised he was facing “astronomical” costs of over £20,000 due to having to redecorate twice and having withdrawn his property from the market, and he was concerned he would have to carry out further repairs at additional cost. He told the landlord he had not heard anything regarding his insurance claim, and requested he was given the contact details he would need to make a claim.
  39. On 23 June 2022 the resident notified the landlord he had found “signs of water entering my home again”. He told the landlord he had still not heard from its insurance department regarding his claim. The resident asked for an update on what would be done to resolve the problem, and for contact from the insurance department.
  40. On 27 June 2022, the landlord issued a brief response the resident’s email of 23 June 2022. It confirmed it had passed his details to its insurance team, and added that because its complaint procedure had been exhausted, “any issues regarding this matter will need to be referred to the Housing Ombudsman”.
  41. The resident responded on 28 June 2022, reiterated that he had been told by its contractor that the problem with the external guttering would be addressed, and that it was “unacceptable” that it had been left disconnected. He pointed out the scaffold had been erected over two months previously, and highlighted that it posed a security risk which meant he could not leave his windows open. He expressed his dissatisfaction at the landlord’s failure to complete the outstanding repair, and having suggested he should contact the Ombudsman regarding this. He reported that water had entered via new areas of the front bedroom, and again around the window in the front room. He explained the issue had caused “endless stress” in his life, and asked that if he had missed a contact from the landlord’s insurance team, it be re-sent to him. 
  42. The landlord’s records show its insurer sent an email to the resident on 30 June 2022. The insurer told the resident it had sent an email to him on 27 April 2022, and had asked him to complete a form and send photos of the damage to his property. It repeated this request, and advised its investigations were ongoing. It told the resident it had established the building was inspected regularly and no issues with the guttering had been found, and asked him if it was possible that the leak was coming from within his building instead.  
  43. On 7 July 2022 the resident responded to the insurance company. He explained he was “fed up” and had “been passed from department to department and nothing has been done” to compensate him for his losses, or to fix the problem. He suggested the insurance company thought it could “fob [him] off” by saying the water had come from inside his home. He shared the response he had received from the buildings insurance company, which had attributed responsibility to the landlord, as well as selected correspondence from the landlord regarding his complaint. He advised the insurance company to speak to the landlord for a history of events, as he would take legal action if this was not resolved.
  44. The Ombudsman spoke to the resident on 3 March 2023, and he confirmed one bedroom remained unusable due to the extent of the mould. He advised that he and his mother had health conditions, and he was concerned the mould had made his mother ill. The resident confirmed the landlord had not carried out an inspection of the interior of the property, and that whilst the contractor had attended to do works to the guttering, it had been a “bodged job” and had not resolved the issue with the overflowing rain water. The resident explained the matter had caused him significant distress, and he had incurred further significant costs on his bridging loan.
  45.  The Ombudsman notified the landlord of the concerns raised by the resident on 3 March 2023. The landlord responded on 10 March 2023 and advised the resident that it had asked its contractor to re-inspect the guttering, and the contractor had recommended that the guttering be “cleared, repaired and replaced”. The landlord advised its contractor would erect scaffolding and then contact the resident to arrange the necessary works to the guttering. It further informed the resident that it was “not insured” to enter the resident’s home to carry out repairs. It advised the resident he would need to contact his insurance company, or the landlord’s insurance company, regarding “internal repairs” to his property. It attached a copy of its stage two response from March 2022, and provided contact details for the Housing Ombudsman.
  46. The Housing Ombudsman kept in communication with the landlord during its investigation, and the landlord provided an update on 17 April 2023. Its contractor had completed its attendance to carry out further repairs. The landlord’s staff had attended on 17 April 2023, but it could not verify that the repair was successful because the scaffold had been taken down and it was not raining when it visited. A member of its staff acknowledged having “previously seen the water cascading down on wet days.” The landlord visited the resident at his home, observed the damages he had experienced, and explained to him that whilst he would be responsible for completing internal repairs, he could submit a claim to its insurers because the damages had been caused by an internal repair. 
  47. The resident has copied the Ombudsman into correspondence to the landlord’s insurers, including on 3 May 2023, which demonstrates he has shared photos and set out the financial impact he has experienced.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress caused by faulty guttering

  1. The landlord is responsible for keeping the external gutters and drain pipes on the block in good working order. Its repairs policy also specifies it is responsible for repairs, including to fix penetrative damp, to externally facing walls of leasehold properties.
  2. The landlord received a report from the resident’s neighbour on 8 March 2021 that there were areas of damp behind the gutters and drain pipe, which had led to water ingress in their flat. The resident made similar reports to the landlord on 24 May 2021, and another of his neighbours reported overflowing gutters leading to water ingress to their flat on 2 July 2021.
  3. It is recognised that the landlord instructed contractors to attend the property on at least four occasions during the complaint period. However, the landlord remains unable to verify it has successfully fixed the issues affecting the gutters and drain pipes, so that water does not hit the walls of the block when it rains. This is unacceptable and amounts to severe maladministration.
  4. The landlord did not have a clear plan to address the specific reports of water ingress to the resident’s flat. It focussed on communal repairs to the gutters and pipes, and first gave the resident a repair reference for the job raised on 8 March 2021 for his first neighbour, and then opened a complaint associated with a repair reference for the job raised for his second neighbour. It was not until 5 October 2021 that it logged a repair to specifically investigate the water ingress to the resident’s flat. On its own, this is an unreasonable delay, however the investigations did not actually take place, which again amounts to severe maladministration on the part of the landlord.
  5. The landlord’s management of its contractor was inadequate. It did not take reasonable steps to verify contact with the resident had been attempted as reported by the contractor. It missed that the contractor used the wrong street address twice on emails, and it is possible that this explains why the contractor said it did not receive an answer when it tried to attend the resident’s property. The resident strongly disputes that contact was attempted by phone.
  6. The resident was caused severe distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s failure to act. He had to make repeated reports to the landlord and chase responses over a period of two years. The landlord failed to take ownership of the straightforward requests he had made, which can be summarised as:
    1. Fix the guttering and drainpipes;
    2. Stop the water ingress to his property, carrying out any external repairs as appropriate to achieve this;
    3. Reimburse him for the expense of rectifying the internal damage caused by the water ingress, which had led to damp and mould due to repeat occurrences.
  7. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether illness has been caused by the landlord’s failures. However, it is clear the resident informed the landlord of his concern for his own and his mother’s health due to the damp, mould and fungus, and also of the mental toll the events were taking on him. The landlord should have recognised the additional distress these concerns could cause the resident, and it should have prompted a stronger response from the landlord. The landlord did not take appropriate steps to understand the risks to the resident and his family, including the fact a child was living in the property, and as a consequence did not offer an appropriately tailored response.
  8. The landlord confused matters early on, when it advised the resident to claim for damages through insurance. Its handling of the resident’s insurance claim will be addressed separately below.
  9. The sum of the landlord’s response is that the resident has reported ongoing leaks from the gutters as of April 2023, more than two years after his neighbour first brought the issue to the landlord’s attention. The landlord remains unable to confirm whether the issue was successfully fixed by its contractor at its latest attendance. As of May 2023, nearly two years after the resident first reported the damage caused by water ingress to his property, he is living with damp, mould, an unsafe bedroom and a living room that can’t be used as such, and has not received any financial reimbursement for the expenses he has incurred to date.
  10. The landlord must now take swift action to address these outstanding repairs matters and put right the failures in its response, and orders are made to that effect below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s insurance claim

  1. The landlord identified early on that it would treat the resident’s claim for costs incurred to rectify internal damage to his property, caused by the water ingress, as an insurance claim. However, its communication with him regarding this was not clear or consistent, and even when it eventually tried to explain the separation of the resident’s complaint and his claim for reimbursement, it did not do this in a way that the resident understood. 
  2. It first, and mistakenly, directed the resident to claim via building insurance. It compounded this inconvenience by initially giving him details for the new building insurers, despite the issue with the gutters dating from March 2021. Once the resident was given contact details and approached the insurers in place at March 2021, the landlord notified the insurance company that the problem was caused by a defective rain water pipe which it was responsible for maintaining, thus disqualifying the resident’s claim under the building insurance policy. This is a serious waste of the resident’s time and caused him significant trouble.
  3. After the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with its stage one response of 5 October 2021 because it ignored the costs he had incurred, the landlord attempted on 12 October 2021 to clarify the separation of its insurance protocols and complaints process. It took until 13 October 2021 for the landlord to attempt to explain the outline of how a claim could be made against its public liability insurance. Unfortunately, the resident did not receive these emails, and contacted the landlord on 25 October 2021 specifically telling it he had not received a response to his email of 7 October 2021. In evidence of poor record keeping and information sharing between teams, the call handler was not aware these vital emails had been sent and told the resident that responses were taking up to 15 working days. The call handler explained the resident could escalate his complaint to stage two if he was dissatisfied, which the resident did that day.
  4. The length of time the landlord took to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint is addressed below. When it did respond, on 23 March 2022, it again attempted to explain that claims for damages to property, belongings or health must be dealt with by its insurance team rather than under its complaints process. It did not make it clear how the resident could initiate this, and caused him further time and trouble when he had to chase it for the contact details of its insurance team.
  5. The landlord’s insurance team formally acknowledged his claim on 20 April 2022, eleven months after he first asked if there was “an allowance” he could claim for expenses incurred putting right the damage to his property. The cumulative effect of this substantial delay and poor communication amounts to severe maladministration on the part of the landlord.
  6. The landlord’s public liability insurer asserts it emailed the resident to request the details and supporting evidence for his claim on 27 April 2022, however the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to verify this.
  7. After another chase by the resident, the insurer emailed him on 30 June 2022. It set out the details it would require from him to progress his claim, and it also advised it was conducting an investigation. It told him it had established the gutters were inspected regularly and no fault had been identified, and questioned the resident as to whether the leak was coming from inside his property. As well as causing understandable frustration, these updates confused the matter with the resident because the landlord had already accepted liability for the maintenance of the gutter and linked this to the water ingress he had experienced. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring the insurance claim was handled properly lay with the landlord, and it is clear it did not adequately liaise with the public liability insurer or monitor the response the resident had received on its behalf.
  8.  Almost a year later, the resident has still not received a decision on his claim. This may in part be due to the insurance company not having received some of the details it required, but the landlord has not demonstrated appropriate effort to take responsibility for explaining to the resident what he needs to do, supporting him to provide the information, or ensuring he received an appropriate and timely response. The landlord should now give the resident a single point of contact who will take responsibility for liaising with the insurance company on his behalf, until the response to his claim is received. An order is made to that effect below.

Handling of the associated complaint

  1. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to treat the resident’s contact on 21 July 2021 as a stage one complaint. He had expressed dissatisfaction with its response to date, and made it clear he was looking to be compensated for the losses he had incurred. Under the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, the resident is not required to have used the word ‘complaint’ for the landlord to have recognised his email as such.
  2. It was not until 10 August 2021 that the landlord opened a stage one complaint. It closed it on 23 August 2021, when it confirmed scaffold would be erected at the end of that week, to enable repairs to be carried out to the gutters and pipes. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether it definitely informed the resident of this, and this may partly explain why it opened a second stage one complaint on 5 October 2021, referencing an email from the resident on 4 August 2021.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one response on the same day it opened the complaint, 5 October 2021. This was 54 working days after the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 21 July 2021. The fact the landlord responded on the same day it opened the complaint does not demonstrate it gave due care and consideration to the issues the resident had raised, and indeed it failed to address the damage caused to the resident’s property.
  4. This caused the resident further time and trouble in attempting to escalate his complaint, and it is unacceptable that after he challenged the closure of his complaint on 7 October 2021, it took 43 working days for the landlord to confirm his complaint had been escalated to stage two, on 6 December 2021. Even then, the landlord delayed dealing with his complaint, and it was not until intervention from the Ombudsman that it began investigating the issues on 15 March 2022. From the resident’s challenging of the closure of his stage one complaint, to the issuing of the landlord’s stage two response, took 117 working days.
  5. The lack of communication and excessive delays from the landlord demonstrate maladministration in its complaint handling. This is compounded by the opportunities it missed to resolve the complaint at stage one, by failing to address all of the issues raised by the resident.
  6. The landlord’s stage two response represented an attempt to clarify its responsibilities and procedures regarding the repairs and the damage that had been caused. It made an attempt to put things right, however it did not fully explain what had gone wrong, which does not give confidence that it learned from its failures, or that it had identified reasonable levels of redress. For example, it told the resident it would compensate him for the loss of use of two rooms, but did not explain how it calculated the amount it offered. It offered the resident compensation for failures under the right to repair, but did not specify what these were. It offered compensation for the time taken to respond at stage two of its complaint process, but did not offer similar compensation for the time taken to respond at stage one.
  7. In relation to failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
  8. The value of the damage caused to the resident’s property, belongings and health falls outside the scope of compensation the Housing Ombudsman will order, but it is crucial the landlord ensures a decision is issued by its insurer. The landlord previously offered the resident £3000 compensation for the loss of two rooms, distress and inconvenience, and delays at stage two. Given the severity of the landlord’s failures, it would be appropriate to increase this amount.
  9. The landlord did not explain how it calculated the compensation level for the loss of use of two rooms. Given the length of time the issue has continued since it offered £2450, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, it is appropriate that the landlord offer an additional £3550. This will take the total compensation for loss of use of the rooms to £6000, which is a more reasonable level of redress. 
  10. The landlord previously offered a total of £250 for the distress and inconvenience it had caused the resident. This does not reasonably capture the impact on the resident, or the extended distress and inconvenience he experienced after the closure of his stage two complaint, and it would therefore be appropriate to increase this to £500 for distress and £500 for inconvenience.
  11. The landlord previously offered £250 for “failures under the right to repair”. As set out above, the landlord failed to meet its responsibilities to keep the communal gutters and pipes in good repair, and also its responsibility to address the water ingress to the resident’s externally facing walls. This has stretched to two years from the first time the resident reported the issues, and it was already aware of the issue with the gutters in March 2021. It would therefore be appropriate to increase this to £1000.
  12. The landlord previously offered £50 for the delays to its stage two response. It would be appropriate for it to offer compensation for its delays at stage one as well, and £500 is a more appropriate level of compensation for the time that elapsed from the resident’s email of 21 July 2021 until the landlord issued a stage two response on 23 March 2022.
  13. The landlord should also apologise to the resident for the distress, time and trouble its failures have caused him, and an order is made to that effect below. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress caused by faulty guttering.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s insurance claim.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to meet its obligations regarding the disrepair reported by the resident.
  2. The landlord did not take ownership of the resident’s insurance claim, and took too long to explain why the resident needed to claim through insurance rather than its complaints process. It did not ensure he understood its explanation or what he needed to do. The landlord accepted responsibility for the defective guttering and resultant water ingress, but did not convey that to its public liability insurer.
  3. The landlord’s lack of communication regarding the resident’s complaint added to his distress and inconvenience, and its inadequate investigation meant it did not identify what had gone wrong or how to put it right. It did not show that it had taken appropriate learning to prevent these events recurring in future.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay £8500 compensation directly to the resident. The £3000 it previously offered should be deducted from this total, if it has already been paid. The compensation is to be comprised of:
    1. £6000 compensation for the loss of use of two rooms for two years;
    2. £500 for distress;
    3. £500 for inconvenience;
    4. £500 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures;
    5. £1000 for the impact of the failures in its response to the resident’s reports of water ingress caused by defective guttering and pipes over two years.

This must be done within four weeks of the date of this report, and confirmed to the Ombudsman when complete.

  1. It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this report, a representative of appropriate seniority from the landlord apologise to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble it has caused him and his family. The landlord must provide a copy of the apology to the Ombudsman when completed.  
  2. It is ordered that on receipt of this report, the landlord identify a member of its staff who will act as the point of contact for the resident regarding his insurance claim. That member of staff should confirm to the resident, within one week, what stage his claim is at, what, if any, further information is required from him, and what timescale the insurance company will be able to provide a decision in. The member of staff should then take responsibility for directly liaising with the insurance company until a decision is issued to the resident.
  3. It is ordered that within two weeks of the date of this report, the landlord appoint an appropriately qualified professional to:
    1. Undertake an inspection of the guttering and drainpipes, and confirm they have been successfully repaired with no further leaks;  
    2. Inspect the externally facing walls of the resident’s property, to assess for disrepair; 
    3. Ensure appropriate works are carried out to remedy points of water ingress to the resident’s property, which should be within six weeks of the date of this report;
    4. Confirm to the Ombudsman when these actions are complete.
  4. It is ordered that the landlord conduct an internal case review of this complaint, to identify how it will prevent the failings identified in this report from happening in future. It should do this within four weeks of the date of this report, and confirm to the Ombudsman what learning it has identified, when complete.
  5. It is ordered that within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord establish a plan to train its relevant staff members on how to distinguish between a repairing responsibility and a liability under its building and public liability insurance policies. It should ensure the training covers its responsibilities where it leases properties within blocks it manages, and the plan should include the timescales it will deliver the training in. It should confirm to the Ombudsman when this is complete, and provide details of the plan it devises.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord offer its relevant staff training on its policies regarding its areas of repair responsibilities for leaseholders and shared owners, more generally.
  2.      It is recommended that the landlord implement an appropriate regular inspection routine of the guttering at the resident’s block, to ensure it functions as necessary.
  3.      It is recommended the landlord review its systems for record keeping, to ensure that its call centre has visibility of communications from its other teams, including its complaints team, its repairs team, and its insurance team, and vice versa.