One Housing Group Limited (202204745)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204745

One Housing Group Limited

27 March 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

The resident’s complaint was about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress into his flat from a roof garden, resulting in damage, damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a two-bedroom third floor flat under an assured tenancy with his wife and teenage son which began 9 September 2019. His flat was situated in a block of flats. There was a roof terrace next to his flat on a slightly raised level.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for the structure of the property including the drains and roof.
Under Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had an obligation that the property should be habitable in relation to freedom from damp.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy, the timescales for repairs was as follows;
1. Emergency Repairs – Respond within 3 hours and attended to and make safe within 24 hours. If possible complete. Any follow up work to be raised as a new job and placed within its appropriate category.
2. Routine Repairs – Attend within 7 working days, complete within 28 working days.
Under the complaints policy, the landlord should respond within working 10 days at Stage 1 and within 20 working days at Stage 2.
Under its compensation policy, the maximum amount it would pay was £500.

Chronology

The landlord set out a chronology in its Stage 1 complaint response and this was largely reflected in its repair records and vice versa. The resident’s reports emphasised throughout that there were leaks when it rained and the resident believed that the leak was from the roof.
According to the landlord’s complaint response, the resident had reported a leak into his property on or around 18 December 2019. An engineer attended on 19 December 2019 who reported that “no leak found in the property but it identified a damp patch behind one of the units to an external wall, It would check the roof garden for possible a leak”.
The landlord’s contractors attended on 9 January 2020 and accessed the roof with a cherry–picker. It identified that the lead flashings had “blown” as a possible cause. It also identified a small leak on the radiator valve. It replaced the valve on 10 January 2020. On 17 or 19 January 2020, its engineer attended the property and identified that the living room had “got wet”. On the other side of external wall there was a roof terrace. The engineer did not have the key for the roof garden door. It raised a job and required a roofer and the key.
The following was according to the complaint response: on an unspecified date, its contractor gained access with a cherry picker and unblocked a gutter which was full of debris but reported that the main roof was in good condition. The contractor attended again on 3 March 2020. It lifted the slabs and sealed the laps in the roof. It recommended that if it kept leaking, it would seal with a specialist liquid rubber system. On 17 April 2020, the contractors removed the mushroom caps which job had been raised on 16 March 2020.
The landlord’s engineer attended on 1 June 2020 and reported that the front/living room flooring needed replacing. The landlord’s contractors attended on 7 October 2020 and cleared and unblocked the debris from the gutters and outlets to allow water to flow and drain correctly.
There was a gap in the evidence during which time it is indicated there were no further reports or works and it is reasonable to assume the living room flooring was replaced.
On 20 October 2020, a job was raised for the roofing team to investigate. The roof contractor attended on 28 October 2020 and stated that the gutter was dry. It sealed joints with a waterproofer. The gutter did not have good falls causing water to fill in places.
According to the complaint response, the contractors attended on 5 November 2020 that it had already attended several times and the roof was in good condition. It did not believe this was a roof leak as the resident’s floorboards were damaged but there were signs of a leak on the ceiling.
On 17 November 2020, the landlord’s own engineer attended who requested for roofers to attend as the leak started again after heavy rain. The plumbing was not affected. It requested a dehumidifier to protect the new floors.
The records show that on 10 December 2020, the resident “insisted” something wrong with the roof water, as he continued to experience leaks.
On 7 January 2021, an engineer/plumber attended to inspect internal pipework under floorboards. It checked behind a number of units and appliances but did not identify any leaks. It noted that the wall which leading to the roof garden had signs of a leak, given wet patches behind some of the units and next to the radiator. However, the slabs on the roof terrace had been removed and water collected when it rained. There was also loose cladding on the outside wall. The resident had stated that when the contractors came to reseal the roof garden that it was a “rushed job” and left the slabs off. The job was raised with the specialist contractors for the roof.
On 16 February 2021, following another inspection, a surveyor visit was requested.
On 11, 16 February 2021 and 22 April 2021, the resident chased the landlord regarding his reports of “flooding”. He attached a photograph of a wet floor, appeared to be of a hallway with paper soaking up water. He said he felt he was being ignored.
An internal note of 6 May 2021 stated that a roofer should have been asked to inspect not a surveyor.
On 12 May 2021, another job was raised to investigate the roof.
On 20 May 2021, the landlord’s specialist contractor’s survey summary conclusion was as follows:
1. The landlord had reported mould and spongy flooring due to water ingress from the roof terrace after rainfall. The contractor was to carry out leak detection in order to determine the cause of the water damage.
2. It noted that the flooring had been removed to the hallway. The landlord had advised it had removed when the lounge flooring was replaced.
3. The contractor identified fungal contamination on lounge skirting. Fungal spores were a health risk which would continue to spread and had the potential for the spores to become airborne which could cause health issues.
4. It set out what investigations had been carried out, including removing kick boards, inspected pipework, water pressure and the boiler.
5. It was unable to access to the roof terrace due to it being locked. The landlord advised they did not have a key for the doors.
6. The moisture meter highlighted raised moisture levels on the floor under the kitchen units and the lounge skirting board. Thermal imaging inspection of the affected area located a significant heat anomaly on the kitchen wall/floor under the units and on the lounge skirting board.
7. There were no leaks present on any of the internal plumbing and services within the property. The cause of the water damage to the kitchen and lounge was yet to be determined.
8. It recommended an investigation for leaks from the roof terrace.
9. It attached photos of the hallway of the floor covering showing what appeared to be mould on the lounge skirting, staining, and a wet area under the kitchen units.
On 9 June 2021, a job was raised for a surveyor to investigate. The landlord informed this Service that its operative attended and advised the subfloor in the hallway to be damp, very spongy, and starting to break up. Additionally, both the living room and kitchen exhibited floor damage due to a leak from the rooftop garden. An internal email dated 1 September 2021 requested an inspection following this finding.
On 1 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to state it was closing the complaint and visiting the property on 7 September 2021.
On 1 December 2021, a job was raised for the landlord’s specialist contractor to carry out a dye test on the roof. They attended on 16 December 2021. The complaint response stated that there were no notes on the records. However, according to the complaint response, a safety check was required before the specialist contractor could gain access into the roof. However, the safety check was not carried out and the contractor closed down the order waiting for a report on safety check
On 21 December 2021, the landlord’s internal emails noted that the resident had contacted them and was “very dissatisfied” that the appointment made was not attended to by the landlord.
On 8 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP that the roof appointment was not followed up as expected due to the “unavailability” of the specialist roof leak detection company. The specialist roof leak company required grab rails to be installed on the roof for health and safety reasons before they could attend to this job. It was seeking to facilitate this. The contractors would contact the resident.
On 10 June 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint about a leak from an outside source had caused damp and mould wet floors.
The records of 23 June 2022 stated that the specialist contractor would not attend until an inspection of the safety for working on the roof had taken place and the landlord had confirmed there was safe access.
On 23 June 2022, the contractor had attended on an abortive visit. It requested that an order for a safety specialist company to investigate the safety system on the roof was required.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord replied with its Stage 1 complaint as follows:
1. It set out a detailed chronology.
2. There had been a history of leaks into the property dating from 2019.
3. A safety check was required before the specialist contractor could gain access into the roof. Its specialist contractors did not attend his property when it instructed them to do so on 30 November 2021. This was because the safety check was not carried out and the contractor closed down the order waiting for a report on safety check.
4. This was a service failure and it apologised. His complaint is upheld. It apologised.
5. It had booked a job with its safety contractor who would attend on 28 June 2022.
6. It needed to be clearer in its communication with residents and contractors regarding a scheduled job which had been a long-standing issue.
7. It would monitor the job to ensure that he was kept updated if the event of any changes.
8. It offered compensation of £250 consisting of £50 in relation to the “Right to Repairs” and £200 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing repairs.
On 30 June 2022, the resident wrote that the contractor did not attend on 28 June 2022. He was very dissatisfied with the lack of any action by the landlord. He was awaiting for “competent staff” to investigate the leak in the rooftop garden and repair it “once and for all”.
There followed a number of internal emails resulting in the appointment eventually being rebooked for 22 July 2022.
On 6 July 2022, the resident there had been no update as asked to escalate the complaint to the next stage.
In early August 2022, there was a further numerous internal emails about the location of the keys to the roof.
On 4 August 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. Its safety contractor had made two attempts resolve the safety systems on 23 June 2022 and 13 July 2022, but were unable to access the roof to check the system as a result of not being issued with the correct keys.
2. It apologised for the administrative error, for the lack of communication from and for the ongoing inconvenience.
3. This inspection should have taken place by then and it had shared its disappointment and frustration with the lack of ownership with its team.
4. A specific person would review processes to prevent a similar occurrence.
5. The safety team was due to visit again on 11 August 2022 and the correct keys had been issued. A specific officer would check on 11 August 2022 that the inspection had taken place and if so, it would arrange for the roof repairs to be undertaken as soon as possible.
6. That officer would be the resident’s single point of contact until the works were fully completed. That officer would telephone him at regular intervals to ensure he was kept updated.
7. It personally apologised for the length of time it had taken to complete the roofing repair.
8. It understood the impact, delay and inconvenience and had discussed the complaint with the senior management team. It would ensure its management and oversight of similar works improved and it needed to improve its communication with its customers.
9. It upheld the complaint due to the length of time to progress the roof repair and its poor communication. It had failed to keep its promises at Stage 1 of the complaint.
10. It increased the compensation to £400 consisting of £50 under “Right to Repair” and ongoing stress and inconvenience of £350. This was in its “high impact” category.
On 9 or 10 August 2022, the property manager was due to be at the property but only had fob access to the building and enquired whether the engineer had the master key to the roof.
An internal email of 11 August 2022 stated that the engineer was not able to get to the roof to carry out the repairs. It raised an emergency job order to change the locks. The complaints officer/landlord monitored and queried this.
There followed further internal emails regarding what had been done with the keys and their location as well as recommendations on arrangements and checks to avoid further abortive visits. This included a history of steps taken regarding the key. It located the keys after the appointment was due to take place and considered testing them. The complaints team requested updates, made suggestions for the future and communication with the resident.
A new appointment was arranged for the 18 August 2022 and communicated to the resident but the appointment was postponed again, due to the lack of access.
A further appointment was arranged for 27 September 2022. On 7 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident that further to a site visit on 30 September 2022 with the contractor, it was to install a freestanding galvanised guard rail. It would update the resident. The rail was installed on 1 November 2022.
According to an internal email dated 24 November 2023, a further leak had been reported and the landlord had inspected the roof. It made a recommendation that it reinforce aluminium cappings and seal the flashings.
On 1 December 2023, the landlord informed this Service that its records indicated that the last reported leak incident to the roof area was in March 2023 and all works were completed at that time.
On 9 February 2024, this Service requested an update from both parties. On 29 February 2024, the resident informed this service that the situation had remained unchanged since March 2023, there had been no further inspections or works by the landlord and the water ingress was ongoing. He demonstrated he had reported further leaks to the landlord’s contractors in April 2023 and May 2023. He chased the contractors on 12 June 2023. This Service made further enquiries to the landlord, informing it that the resident had informed us that there had been further leaks and issues had not been resolved. The landlord stated that it would contact the resident and update this Service, however, as at the date of this report the landlord, despite further requests, has not provided any further information.

Assessment and findings

Water ingress

The evidence showed that the landlord responded promptly and within timescales to the resident’s reports of water ingress. It undertook works and inspections. It cleared the gutter, it sealed the roof laps, it waterproofed the roof. It instructed roof specialists, it carried out a number of surveyor inspections and it commissioned a specialist report. It is recognised that it might take several attempts to diagnose an issue, in particular a source of a leak, due to the nature of water. The issue appeared to be resolved in the spring of 2020 at which time, the landlord reasonably replaced the living room flooring. There was no explanation why it removed but did not replace the hall flooring at the time but this was not part of the resident’s complaint. However, the issues re-emerged in the autumn of 2020.
While the landlord acted promptly in many respects, there were also significant delays, in particular to follow-ups. There were avenues that the landlord and/or its contractors identified but there was no evidence that they were explored, including the issue with water collecting identified in October 2020, noted again in January 2021, and an issue with the cladding identified in January 2021. There was for example unexplained delays from June to September 2021.
There was an ongoing difficulty in relation to the key to the roof. The issue of the missing key was first identified in January 2020. This did not initially affect progress as the roofer used a cherry–picker for the initial subsequent repairs. However, despite the landlord being aware that the key was missing from its usual location, there was no evidence that it proactively sorted this out. While some human error is understandable, there followed, in particular in 2022, a catalogue of apparently avoidable errors regarding the location of the key that suggested more than an acceptable level of error.
The landlord was transparent in recognising its delay in raising the safety works for the specialist contractor. The landlord’s tone at that point indicated a genuine sense of frustration and empathy for the resident’s situation. However, there was a lack of forethought and efficiency in its planning. The issue of the location of the key caused further delays, despite the assurances the landlord had made. Progress in 2022 was slow. While the requirements of the specialist contractor were, unsurprisingly, stringent, it took nearly a year for the landlord to resolve them which seemed to happen in a piecemeal fashion. This indicated a lack of planning and a reactive rather than pro-active, attitude. There was no evidence that the landlord requested a clear plan so as to understand what was required for a roof–top inspection.
The landlord was entitled, to an extent, to rely on the opinion of its roofing contractors. It was reasonable of the landlord to undertake a thorough investigation in the interior of the resident’s flat. The evidence indicated that the roof terrace was adjacent, and not over, the resident’s flat. The issue was in relation to the exterior wall. In the circumstances, ruling out a roof leak because there was no evidence of water damage to the ceiling would not be reasonable. The evidence showed that the leaks were persistent and clearly not resolved.
There was also some to–ing and fro–ing between whether a roofer or a surveyor was required. The evidence also indicated that a number of different staff, but with similar expertise, were involved, which indicated a lack of ownership. The resident had suggested there be a joint inspection. Given all of these circumstances, in addition to the length of time this situation was ongoing, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not arrange a joint inspection, in order to bring together the different expertise and differing views.
There was no dispute that the resident’s property suffered water ingress and this caused his flooring to become “spongy”, as described in January 2021 and June 2021. The evidence that the landlord took steps but that there were delays attributable to the landlord and that progress lacked proper planning and monitoring. There was poor communication for example not attending on 28 June 2021 without giving any notice. This was particularly unsatisfactory, given that the resident was suffering water ingress for a lengthy period of time which was affecting the condition of his home. It was also unsatisfactory that the same errors were repeated despite the landlord’s reassurances in its complaint responses. He was living with cardboard instead of flooring. There was mould in his property. This also left the resident feeling that the landlord was ignoring him. Finally, there was no evidence that the landlord offered to carry out remedial repairs to the flooding in the property which once again had become damaged.
It is concerning that despite the works carried out in November 2022 and further works in or by March 2023, the issue remains unresolved. It is concerning that the landlord did not post-inspect and there is no evidence of any communication with the contractor or resident following the works.
The Ombudsman does not find that the offer of £400 was adequate compensation. While a certain amount of “trial and error” with repairs is to be expected, this issue has been ongoing for a significant amount of time. Given that and that the water ingress is still not resolved, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident indicated on a number of occasions that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his reports of water ingress, both through his MP and on 21 December 2021. It did not address his complaint until this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The response reasonably acknowledge the service failure in relation to not pursuing the safety requirements and its poor communication. However, it did not identify the previous delays in a situation that had been ongoing for the 18 months.
There was benefit to the complaint handling in that its complaint team monitored the actions of the landlord, although with limited success, and understood the importance of updates. It reasonably recognised this was a high impact. While the landlord still did not have the proper arrangements in place after Stage 2, this will be reflected in the findings in relation to the substantive complaint. However, the landlord did not consider reviewing its complaint response, given the further errors and delays.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks into his flat from a roof garden resulting in damage, damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord took a number of steps locate the leak and undertake repairs, there was a number of delays that were attributable to the landlord. This was unreasonable given the length of time the water ingress persisted and the landlord’s assurances that it would remedy it.
While the complaint handling was of benefit to the progress and was largely transparent, delays and errors persisted. In the circumstances, the landlord should have considered reviewing its complaint response in order to recognise those further delays.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay to the resident £2,150 in addition to the £400 already offered the sums as follows:
  1. £2,000 to include the £400 already offered in relation to its to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks into his flat.
  2. £150 in relation to its complaint handling.
2. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
  1. Inspect the roof together with an independent RICS roof surveyor. That inspection is to establish whether the leak has been resolved, and if not, what intervention is needed to permanently resolve the problem.
  2. Inspect the resident’s property and assess what remedial repairs are required, if any, to remedy the damage to the flooring, units and decorations caused by the water ingress, such repairs to be assessed by an independent surveyor.
  3. The landlord should provide a report to the resident and the Ombudsman setting out a schedule of works, to include remedial works such as replacing any damaged flooring, and timescales to be carried out no later than 8 weeks after this report.
  4. The landlord should pay further compensation if the repairs resolving the water ingress have not been completed within 8 weeks at a rate of £20 a week.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should review a complaint in particular where issues are not resolved with its complaint response.
2. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.