Raven Housing Trust Limited (202330231)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a purpose-built block. She has mobility issues, osteoporosis, anxiety and depression and has had treatment for cancer. The resident reported leaks to the ceiling of her wet room several times.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of leaks and associated repairs.
   2. Complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks and associated repairs.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not always classify repairs where there was a health and safety risk as an emergency. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident to ease her concerns and provide a plan of action. The landlord contributed to delays in the replacement of the ceiling.
6. The landlord delayed its stage 1 response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the property’s structure and exterior. Repairs may take longer if the landlord needs cooperation or permission from others. Leaseholders are responsible for all repairs and maintenance to their property. On 20 September 2022, the resident reported water coming through the light fitting in her wet room to the out-of-hours service. The landlord advised her to place a bucket on the floor and avoid using the bathroom light until it dried. It stated it could not act because the leak came from a leasehold property above. The landlord’s policy is to attend within 24 hours to make the situation safe where there is a risk of injury. Water entering through an electrical fitting presents such a risk. Despite the source being a leasehold property, the landlord still had a duty to ensure the resident’s safety and check the electrics. The matter should have been treated as an emergency repair due to the possible hazard.
8. The next day, the resident phoned the landlord to log the repair. The landlord sent an electrician to make the light safe as an emergency. It also contacted the leaseholder above and told them to get a plumber to check for leaks and report back. These steps were appropriate, but the resident should not have needed to re-report the issue.
9. On 13 April 2023, the resident reported another leak through the light. The landlord contacted the upstairs leaseholder, who confirmed there was no leak in their property. The resident suspected rainwater might be the cause. The landlord inspected on 17 April 2023 and found no evidence of a leak. The ceiling was intact, and the landlord found no link to the September issue. The landlord did not treat this as an emergency, which its policy requires.
10. On 10 May 2023, the resident reported another leak from her wet room light. The landlord attended the same day as an emergency. With the leaseholder’s permission, an operative checked the property above and found a possible source in the bathroom. He told the leaseholder to call a plumber because it was their responsibility. The landlord turned off the electricity in the resident’s wet room to make it safe, following its policy.
11. On 11 May 2023, the landlord inspected the wet room ceiling and found it was saturated. It needed removing for safety, to allow the joists to dry and the landlord to investigate the leak before reinstatement. The landlord also confirmed with the leaseholder that they had contacted a plumber to resolve the leak. These actions were appropriate. On 16 May 2023, contractors removed damaged plasterboard and fitted plastic sheeting to make the ceiling safe.
12. The evidence shows that the landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation when the ceiling needed to be removed. This was in line with its decant procedure, which states that alternative accommodation should be offered when major works make it impractical for the resident to remain. The resident declined because she needed the adaptations in her property, attendance from her carers and wanted to stay close to family.
13. Although the landlord’s repairs policy does not set a timeframe for completing permanent emergency repairs it does state that routine repairs have a timescale of 28 days and larger jobs, such as major plastering, should be completed within 120 days. The equality and diversity strategy promotes faster response times for vulnerable residents. The landlord reinstated the light on 22 May 2023, within its timescale of 28 days for routine repairs. By then, the resident had engaged the services of a disrepair solicitor. The landlord had made the property safe and was within its timescale of 120 days for major plastering works. However, the situation might have been avoided if the landlord had communicated with the resident to ease her concerns. It should have considered accelerating the process given her vulnerabilities, as set out in its equality and diversity strategy.
14. On 25 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to inspect the condition of her home. The landlord told her it had raised work to reinstate the ceiling and would complete it once the area dried, it did not provide a timescale. There is no evidence that it visited the property or considered using dehumidifiers to speed up drying at this time. It should have visited to understand the extent of the issues and assess the urgency for action, especially because the resident was vulnerable. It could also have used this as an opportunity to confirm if the leaseholder had resolved any leak from their property.
15. By 4 July 2023, the resident had chased the ceiling repairs several times and submitted a stage 1 complaint. Several factors delayed works:
    1. The resident’s solicitor had advised her to refuse access to the landlord until it agreed terms, inspection dates and a schedule of works through them.
    2. The resident’s belief that the leak was coming from the roof, prompting the landlord to divert its attention to this as the possible cause.
    3. The leaseholder had not confirmed that any source of a leak had been investigated and fixed.
    4. The landlord’s solicitor delayed responding to the resident’s solicitor for several weeks.
16. The landlord has the right to access the property to carry out necessary repairs. If a resident refuses entry, the landlord can apply to the court for permission to enter forcibly. On 4 July 2023, the landlord warned it would seek an injunction if the resident continued to refuse access, in line with the tenancy agreement. The landlord accepted responsibility for the ceiling but needed to confirm the leak source first to prevent further damage. The leak appeared to come from the leaseholder’s bathroom, which the landlord was not responsible for under its repairs policy. Despite this, on 17 July 2023, the landlord accessed the leaseholder property, confirmed the source and repaired it. This was an appropriate step to resolve the issue and allow the landlord to meet its responsibility to the resident. The evidence shows that this leak was not linked to the one in September 2022, as there was an 8-month gap between reports. There was no indication of an ongoing issue. The landlord offered alternative dispute resolution at this time, which was appropriate. However, the resident would only consider this after repair work had been agreed.
17. On 25 July 2023, the landlord sought confirmation to install a dehumidifier and schedule ceiling repairs, but the resident initially refused access until consultation with her solicitor. On 27 July 2023, she agreed to the dehumidifier, which the landlord maintained and compensated at £5 per day for electricity. This was a positive step however it should have considered this at the point the leak occurred. Ceiling repairs were delayed while the solicitor reviewed the inspection report and agreed to the schedule of works. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to get an injunction to gain access at this time, however it had no policy in place for no access.
18. The landlord learned that the solicitor had dropped the case and contacted the resident on 13 September 2023 to book ceiling repairs. Works began on 4 October 2023. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns that the leak was still active but found none. It booked follow-on works for plastering, decorating and electrical repairs. There were delays due to operative sickness and the resident rescheduling appointments. Work was completed on 27 November 2023. This was 201 days after the leak was reported, past the 120-day target for major plastering works. While delays were not solely down to the landlord, it could have taken action to ensure that delays were reduced.
19. The landlord did not respond appropriately to all reports of emergencies as per its repair timescales. It also did not communicate effectively with the resident when she first reported the major leak in May 2023. These issues contributed to delays in completing the repair. It apologised for this and offered £500 compensation for service delays. However, this does not adequately reflect the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident. We have made an additional order for compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond to them within 10 working days, which can be extended by 10 days for complex cases. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, which can be extended by 20 days for complex cases. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at the time, which states that stage 2 complaints can be extended by 10 days in exceptional circumstances.
21. On 29 June 2023, the day the stage 1 response was due, the landlord emailed the resident to request an extension to 6 July 2023. However, the landlord did not send the stage 1 response until 19 July 2023, which was 15 days after the stage 1 response was due.
22. The delay with the stage 1 response caused inconvenience and distress for the resident, this leads to a finding of service failure. We have made an order for compensation.

Learning

Complaints handling

23. The landlord acted fairly in prompting the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and extending this window of opportunity for her.

Repairs handling

24. The landlord should ensure it responds appropriately to reports of emergency repairs and that staff understand what qualifies as an emergency.
25. The landlord recognised the need for a more robust system to manage repair projects, ensuring timely completion and regular communication with residents. This is a positive step that would help prevent similar issues in the future. It also informed the Ombudsman that it is drafting a disrepair policy, which will be useful for handling similar cases going forward.
26. The landlord’s procedure is now to log a complaint as soon as a disrepair case arises. This is a positive step to investigate issues and aim to resolve them at an early stage.
27. The landlord now has a no access policy which will assist going forwards in cases where access is a concern.