One Housing Group Limited (202312620)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312620

One Housing Group Limited

21 October 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, however she made it aware during the complaint that she has asthma.
  2. The resident told the landlord about a problem with water ingress into her property in June 2022. The landlord’s contractor attended on 24 June and found that water was getting into the property from the balcony above and said that a roofer was needed to assess the problem. A roofer attended on 26 July and work was completed on 16 August. The contractor lifted paving slabs around a rainwater downpipe and applied new sealant around the joints. A small water check was carried out, with no water penetration.
  3. In November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say that the leak had reoccurred. The landlord raised a job on 4 November and told the resident that a contractor would be in contact soon. On 7 November the resident raised a complaint, saying that she had not heard from a roofer yet and it had been raining constantly, causing the leak to worsen. She told the landlord her and her partner’s health was being affected by lack of sleep due to a constant dripping noise.
  4. The resident spoke to the landlord on 11 November 2022 and said that she thought the problem was structural and needed a permanent fix. She said she suffers from chronic asthma and her breathing was being affected. On 16 November she emailed the landlord to say that a surveyor had visited on 14 November and said they needed to return with a harness but had not done so.
  5. On 18 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that a roofer had visited that day and told her the leak was coming from behind cladding panels. She again said that her asthma was getting worse due to the damp. The landlord’s contractor attended on 25 November 2022. They lifted slabs and applied a liquid rubber coating and renewed silicone before replacing the slabs.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 28 November 2022. It acknowledged that repairs were still outstanding and the issue was not resolved. It offered compensation of £100. The resident responded on 6 December to ask for the complaint to be escalated. She said the compensation was not adequate and she was unhappy there was no concrete plan of action for the issue to be fixed.
  7. The landlord agreed an extension with the resident for it to respond on 3 January 2023 due to the complexity of the issue. It sent its stage 2 response on 18 January in which it apologised for not managing her expectations in a timely manner. It agreed that it did not provide a plan of action in its stage 1 response and said it had now discussed a plan and agreed with her neighbour above for repairs to be carried out to their balcony.
  8. The landlord said it had provided her with its insurer’s details during a recent phone call so she could submit a claim should she wish to. It increased its offer of compensation to £350.
  9. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates during January and February 2023. A surveyor visited on 15 March 2023, who said that the leak appeared to be coming from the roof which had an asphalt finish rather than zinc-cap or coping stone. A further visit took place on 31 March where the surveyor recommended coating the existing capping to the cavity where the water ingress was potentially occurring.
  10. On 31 May 2023 the resident reported that the leak was still occurring. On 5 July she told the landlord that it was still affecting the quality of her sleep. On the same day the upstairs neighbour confirmed that no one had returned to repair the roof since the visit in March.
  11. On 10 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended and said that they thought the dripping noise was coming from the rainwater pipe. They said that a drip tray in the hopper may resolve the issue and noted that some cladding panels needed to come off. A surveyor attended again on 26 July where it was agreed that scaffolding would be erected and the cladding inspected.
  12. On 29 July 2023 the resident contacted this Service and asked us to investigate the complaint as she was unhappy the issue remained unresolved.
  13. On 5 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say that she had been told by neighbours that they had similar issues, which related to a membrane layer. On 14 September the surveyor emailed the resident to say that there was a flaw with the construction of the patio door seal. They said works had been scheduled to lift patio slabs and assess the condition of the balcony floor.
  14. On 11 November 2023 a waterproofing membrane was added to the upstairs balcony and gaps behind cladding were filled. Further waterproofing was outstanding, but dry weather was required for it to set. The leak was fully resolved and work signed off on 25 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about her and her partner’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. This investigation will, however, consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of the leak

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The lease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing and renewing the roof, foundations and main structure of the building. Its repairs and maintenance policy says that it is its responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the home safe, secure and weatherproof. The policy says that it will attend all routine repairs within 28 days.
  3. The earliest record of the leak the landlord has provided was a job raised on 24 June 2022. It is not clear from the information provided when the resident contacted the landlord to report the problem. A contractor attended the property on 26 June, within the landlord’s repairs policy timescale. It inspected the door seal and reported that this was not the problem and that a roofer was required.
  4. A further inspection took place on 20 July 2022, where it was noted that the seal was coming off, allowing water in. This contradicted what was noted at the previous visit. A further job was raised, which was attended to on 16 August. This was within the repairs policy timescale for this specific job being raised, but not of the date the issue was initially raised.
  5. At this time, paving slabs were lifted around the rainwater downpipe, old silicone was removed and new sealant was applied around all joints before the slabs were replaced. A small water check was carried out at this time and no water was found to have penetrated. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, and it tested the work to check it had been successful, which was appropriate.
  6. On 4 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report of further leaking. It said it had raised a job and a contractor would be in touch soon and that a surveyor would be visiting on 14 November. On 7 November the resident asked for a complaint to be raised as she had not yet heard from the roofer and she said the leak was getting worse. She said that she and her partner were having trouble sleeping due to the constant noise of dripping water, which was affecting their health.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 November 2022 and said she still had not heard from the roofer. She told the landlord she suffers from chronic asthma and her breathing was being affected. The landlord did not record the resident’s health problem and there is no evidence it carried out a risk assessment. It did not demonstrate that it took its obligations under the HHSRS seriously or understood that the damp conditions could impact on the resident’s health.
  8. On 16 November the resident contacted the landlord again to say a surveyor had been on 14 November, but she still had not heard from the roofer. She said the surveyor had told her they would need to come back with a harness but she had heard nothing further. The landlord should have done more to keep the resident updated and ensure its contractors communicated appropriately with her.
  9. The landlord’s contractor visited on 18 November 2022 and confirmed that the leak was coming from behind cladding panels and would need to come back with the right equipment. A contractor visited again on 25 November and took up slabs and applied a rubber coating. The job sheet does not state that the cladding was inspected at this time, despite a potential problem with this being identified.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 28 November 2022. It said that the initial problem was with water backing up on the upstairs balcony and flooding. It acknowledged that water was still getting into the property and offered £100 compensation. The resident was unhappy with this response and asked for the complaint to be escalated on 6 December.
  11. On 3 January 2023 the landlord asked for the resident’s availability for appointments, which she provided. The landlord emailed her to say that contractors will attend on 12 and 13 January.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 January 2023, in which it acknowledged that it had not provided a clear plan of action or managed the resident’s expectations. It confirmed that repairs had been carried out to the upstairs balcony on 12 January but noted that the resident had reported further water ingress the next day. It said it would arrange a joint inspection with a contractor.
  13. The landlord said it should have been more proactive with its investigations and escalated the issue sooner. It increased its compensation offer to £350 to recognise the prolonged period which had impacted the resident. It said it had already provided her with details of its insurer so she could submit a claim. This compensation was reasonable to recognise its failings at this point. It had carried out some repairs within a reasonable timeframe, but it had not communicated well about appointments in November 2022.
  14. On 20 January 2023 the resident and the upstairs neighbour both provided dates they would be available for an inspection and chased the landlord about this several times during February. A surveyor attended on 15 March without the resident being notified, which was not appropriate, however on 31 March the landlord apologised for this lack of communication.
  15. The surveyor said that the leak appeared to be coming from the roof. They recommended concentrating on an asphalt area and fanning out to ensure nothing was overlooked. They also said that there appeared to be an issue around the roof hatch, which needed further investigation. The surveyor and a contractor attended again on 31 March 2023. The surveyor recommended coating the capping to the cavity where it was thought water was getting in. It said scaffolding would not be required.
  16. On 18 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say that she had not heard anything since the visit in March. She emailed again on 31 May as she had not had any response and on 5 June the landlord said it would chase for an update. On 19 June the resident again asked for an update and on 5 July she told the landlord the issue was still affecting her quality of sleep. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord proactively progressed repairs or updated the resident during this period.
  17. On 7 July 2023 the landlord apologised that the resident had not had contact from the surveyor. It emailed the surveyor and asked them to update her. On 10 July a contractor visited the property. They said they thought the noise was coming from a rainwater pipe and recommended a purpose made drip tray in the hopper. The contractor said panels needed to come off which should be straightforward; however, a temporary scaffold handrail was needed.
  18. On 18 July 2023 the landlord asked a contractor to proceed with erecting scaffolding so that the cladding could be inspected. This was almost 4 months after the landlord had said scaffolding was not required, causing an unreasonable delay. A visit from the surveyor was arranged for 26 July, where it was agreed that the cladding panels on the upstairs balcony would be checked. On 27 July the resident asked for confirmation of when the appointment would go ahead, and she chased this up on 2 August.
  19. The resident’s email of 2 August 2023 said that a visit had been agreed for 9 August, however this Service has not seen evidence that this visit went ahead, and if it did, what work was completed. The landlord’s internal records of 30 August note that work carried out had resolved the dripping noise for the upstairs neighbour but not for the resident.
  20. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 and 8 September 2023 to say that she had spoken to other neighbours who had experienced similar issues. She provided information about work they had carried out and provided contact details for contractors used.
  21. On 14 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say they believed they had found the issue causing the dripping noise. They said it was due to a flaw in the construction of the patio door in the upstairs flat, where the seal was non-existent. Works had been scheduled to lift the patio slabs, assess the condition of the balcony floor and apply a liquid compound if necessary.
  22. The surveyor apologised for a slight delay in carrying out repairs, saying that it had taken a significant amount of time to get to the bottom of the leaks and ensure there were not additional leaks contributing to the problem. Whilst it is noted that the surveyor apologised on behalf of the landlord, it had been more than a year since the problems were reported. It was not appropriate for it to refer to this as a ‘slight delay’.
  23. On 8 January 2024 the landlord noted that there were still issues leading to water ingress. It said that remedial actions taken at another similar block could be applied to this block to resolve the issue. The resident had pointed this out to them more than 3 months earlier. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident at that time, or took her suggestion on board. Had it done so, this work could have been carried out sooner. On 25 March 2024 the surveyor confirmed that work had been completed and the leak was resolved. They said the resident had confirmed that the leak had stopped.
  24. The landlord has told this Service that this was a complex issue that required various actions, but that it maintained contact with the resident throughout. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord did take several different steps to try to resolve matters. However, it took 21 months for the landlord to resolve the leak, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a protracted period. This represented an unreasonable delay and was not in line with its repairs policy.
  25. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it kept the resident updated reasonably whilst the problem was ongoing. There were several occasions where the landlord did not keep its promises to update her, and she had to send multiple emails to chase updates. However, it is commendable that the landlord has already undertaken a review of the way it delivers its repairs service and has identified ways in which it can improve.
  26. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. Whilst it did offer redress during its internal complaints process, it did not resolve the issue at this time, so it has not fully considered the impact on the resident. Its complaint responses also failed to recognise what the resident had repeatedly told it about the impact this issue had on her health.
  27. The resident raised concerns that the stage 1 did not set out a concrete plan of action to resolve the problem. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, yet still did not set out or follow through with lasting repairs until 14 months after it concluded its internal complaints process. This represented an unreasonable delay which prolonged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  28. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £750. This amount is to recognise the landlord’s delayed resolution to the problem, as well as its failure to consider the impact on her health. This brings the total compensation to £1,100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,100, less any amount already paid.
  2. A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology.
  3. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service within 28 days of this report.