Manchester City Council (202119702)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119702

Manchester City Council

17 April 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. Water leaking into the resident’s property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The property is a two bedroom self-contained mid-storey flat. The landlord employs a managing agent to oversee the property on a day to day basis who, in turn, has an appointed contractor for repairs and maintenance work. These parties will be referred to throughout this report as the landlord, managing agent and contractor respectively.
4. The resident raised his first stage one complaint to the managing agent on 31 July 2019 as he was experiencing water leaking through the window of his property into a bedroom and lounge. Subsequent complaints were made in December 2019, December 2020 and October 2021. In later complaints the resident requested rehousing due to the length of time taken to resolve the water leakages.
5. Following each complaint, the contractor undertook investigations and works, which included work in the resident’s property, externally and within other flats within the block. The resident continued to raise further complaints as he stated that these works did not resolve the water leakages and he continued to have reduced access to those rooms due to damage, damp and mould. The managing agent’s final stage two complaint response outlined further works that had been scheduled and highlighted that the resident’s request for rehousing had been actioned by him being added to the internal rehousing list. The managing agent also apologised for the period of time taken to resolve this issue.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response from the managing agent and the contractor and escalated their complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 November 2021 on the grounds that water was still leaking into his property. The resident stated that further leaks had caused anxiety, damage to possessions and the inability to use one bedroom. Due to the time taken to resolve these issues satisfactorily, the resident had requested that the landlord rehouse him into a similar property.

Assessment and findings

Scope

7. Over the course of this issue, the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure four times, however was not provided with details about his right to bring his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) until November 2021. The failure to set out how the resident could escalate matters once he had received the stage two response meant that he instead turned to the landlord to re-start the complaints process. For this reason, the scope of this investigation will consider the landlord’s actions from the time the resident raised his first complaint in July 2019 until he escalated that complaint to this Service in November 2021.

Reports of water leaking into the property

8. The Ombudsman does not carry out independent technical assessments of disputed repair and maintenance issues. In investigating this complaint, the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s handling of the issues have been considered, taking into account its legal obligations, its policies and procedures, and good practice.
9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the exterior of the property and undertaking repairs in a reasonable time. The resident is responsible for reporting the repairs required immediately and for facilitating access to their property to allow the repairs to take place.
10. The landlord’s property management standards set out the timescales for undertaking repair work within their properties as follows:
    1. Visible dampness or staining in external walls – one day if this is causing damage to the resident’s belongings, otherwise seven days.
    2. Insecure or missing cladding – three hours if this poses a health and safety risk, otherwise 10 days.
    3. Evidence of water penetration around window – five days.
    4. Corroded, stained or mouldy window frames – 10 days.
11. The resident states that he has been reporting issues related to water leaking through his lounge and bedroom window since he moved into the property and, notwithstanding the scope of this investigation, it is not disputed that this has been a longstanding issue. Within the period of time covered by this investigation, the resident has reported water leaking into the property on at least 10 occasions and has supported this with video evidence on at least two occasions.
12. It is acknowledged that this water ingress (and the associated damage, damp and mould) caused disruption and anxiety to the resident. In particular, the resident stated that the water ingress prevented use of a bedroom for a period of time, meaning that the resident’s daughter was unable to stay with him, unless he slept in his lounge. The resident also reported damage to possessions, including carpets and blinds.
13. On all occasions following a report of water leaks from the resident, the landlord’s contractor attended the property within the timescales set out in their property management standards. Over the course of the repairs, there has been evidence provided to show that the landlord undertook progressively more invasive works in an attempt to resolve the issue. It is noted that both the resident and contractor acknowledge that repairs of this type often require a progressive approach in order to uncover the root cause of the issue. The repairs completed included:
    1. Replacing and resealing plastic trims both internally and externally
    2. Renewing the synthetic rubber roofing membrane (known as EPDM)
    3. Reglazing, resealing and recapping the window
    4. Resealing an expansion joint
    5. Installation of additional insulation
    6. Renewal of the curtain wall, including cladding on the resident’s property and the flats above
14. There is evidence of the contractor undertaking water tests on three occasions, including with a high pressure jet wash on one occasion. Following each of these water tests, the contractor’s records indicated that no water ingress was present within the property.
15. As part of its complaint response on 15 August 2019 the managing agent arranged for the resident’s carpets and blinds to be replaced and offered to repay the sum of £167.64 from the resident’s rent in recognition of the disruption caused. The replacement of carpets and blinds was not completed in full until 19 April 2021 due to ongoing water ingress and works in the interim. It is not clear from the correspondence seen by this Service if, or when, the rent reduction payment was made.
16. In recent correspondence with the managing agent and resident, both have highlighted that work was undertaken following escalation to this Service, between April and July 2022, which concluded on 27 July 2022. It is not contested that since this time, no further water ingress has occurred to date.
17. Overall, this Service considers whether the landlord (or its agents) have acted reasonably and in accordance with their policies. From the evidence considered, the contractor attended in a timely and responsive way to the resident’s reports of water leaking into his property. The contractor has undertaken progressively more invasive and expensive work to resolve the issue and there is evidence of regular contact with the resident to communicate this. Additionally, the managing agent has replaced the carpets and blinds in the resident’s flat and given a one-off reduction in rent for the inconvenience experienced. Taking these factors together, along with the subsequent successful repair in July 2022, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord has acted reasonably in its response to the resident’s concerns about water ingress.
18. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord’s inability to put in place a permanent fix meant that the resident had to pursue this matter for several years. The inconvenience of having to continuously report the leak and accommodate works would have been frustrating. As the landlord was reactive and made reasonable efforts to resolve this for the resident, however, the Ombudsman has not determined that there was a failure in service. A recommendation has been made below, nonetheless, to encourage the landlord to take more extensive repair action in future cases with longstanding issues.

Complaint handling

19. The managing agent’s complaints and compliments policy commits to responding to complaints within 10 working days of receipt. In cases that require longer than this, the managing agent states that it will resolve the complaint within a timescale agreed with the resident. The managing agent previously adopted a three-stage complaint process, however during the course of the period covered by this investigation, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was published, which recommended a two stage process only. The managing agent has subsequently adopted this standard for later complaints covered in this period.
20. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which is available on our website, gives several considerations which are relevant to this complaint:
    1. “Landlords must make their complaint policy available in a clear and accessible format for all residents.”
    2. “Landlords must have a person or team assigned to take responsibility for complaint handling to ensure complaints receive the necessary attention. The role is responsible for ensuring […] appropriate cover exists to ensure consistency of service”
    3. “A full record must be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared.”
    4. “In the final decision the landlord’s policy shall include the right to refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service
21. During the period within the scope of this investigation, the resident raised four complaints to the managing agent, as follows:
    1. The resident’s first complaint was raised on 31 July 2019 and received a stage one complaint response on 15 August 2019. This complaint did not progress further. The managing agent responded within its policy timescales for this complaint.
    2. The resident’s second complaint was raised on 19 December 2019 to the managing agent. The resident received a letter the following day from the contractor addressing the issues in his complaint. The resident did not recognise this letter as a response to his stage two complaint and escalated his complaint on 3 January 2020 on the grounds that the managing agent had not responded to his complaint within the timescale. This complaint was resolved through a meeting between the managing agent and the resident, however from the records seen by this Service no records were made of this meeting, nor were the outcomes or discussion points confirmed in writing afterwards to the resident. As no records exist of this outcome, it is not possible to determine if the response was issued within timescales or if the resident was provided the details to be able to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.
    3. The resident raised his third complaint on 16 December 2020 to the managing agent. A response was issued two days later by the contractor and included an error in the resident’s name. The resident did not recognise this as a response to his complaint and escalated this to stage two. A stage two complaint response was issued on 11 January 2021, however no record of this correspondence has been provided to this Service. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to stage three. There has been no evidence provided to this Service that he received a reply to his stage three complaint, nor any information about escalating his complaint to the Ombudsman.
    4. The resident raised a fourth formal complaint to the managing agent on 31 October 2021. It is not contested that this complaint was made on this day, however this Service has not been provided with a copy of this escalation. The resident received a written response at both stage one and stage two of this complaint. The stage two complaint response outlined his right to progress his complaint to the Ombudsman, which he did on 24 November 2021.
22. Within the correspondence seen by this Service, the records related to the complaints are missing at least three written responses and the minutes or action plan from a meeting. Additionally, the first three complaint responses do not appear to have informed the resident of his right to progress his complaint to the Ombudsman for consideration. This represents a service failure as the Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to keep full and accurate records of complaints and inform residents of their right to escalate their complaints to this Service in its final complaint response.
23. The complaints process in this case was complicated further by unclear relationships and processes between the landlord, managing agent and contractor. This led to the resident receiving some acknowledgements of complaints and responses from the managing agent whilst others have come directly from the contractor. It was clear in correspondence that this was confusing for the resident, who did not recognise the contractor’s correspondence as a response to his complaint, which he made initially to the managing agent. There has been no evidence of the landlord, managing agent or contractor clearly communicating which party would deal with different aspects of the complaint handling. This situation also has the potential for conflicting policies and timescales to be applied to a complaint, depending whether the landlord or contractor’s policies are applied to a particular complaint.
24. Overall, the landlord did not have complete and accurate records of the complaint and did not adequately manage, or communicate, the relationship between its agents that were involved in managing the complaint. The landlord also failed to refer the resident to this Service in at least two complaints that exhausted its internal complaint process. Taken together this resulted in a service failure in the complaint handling process. The landlord, or its agents, do not appear to have acknowledged these failings in its correspondence or made efforts to put them right.
25. Due to this, the landlord is ordered to pay him £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of pursuing this complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available on the HOS website.
26. For completeness, it is noted that the resident requested to be rehoused in resolution of this complaint. There has been evidence provided to this Service that the landlord has placed the resident on its internal housing transfer list and provided details of how to access the housing register in his area. This Service cannot compel a landlord to rehouse a resident, however we would encourage both parties to engage in continuing to explore this option if appropriate.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water leaking into his property.
    2. There has been a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

28. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation.
29. The landlord must provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the above order within four weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

30. The landlord should:
    1. Review its processes for handling complaints to ensure that these are consistent between the landlord, managing agent and contractor and that this is clearly communicated to residents.
    2. Review its record keeping processes to ensure that complaint files are complete, in order to be able to effectively track and respond to issues raised.
    3. Consider taking more timely extensive repair work in future longstanding repair cases.