Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202121354)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121354

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

29 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of water ingress from her roof and resulting damage to her ceiling, damp and mould.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty oven.
3. Response to the resident’s report that she had experienced racism from its staff.
4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Response to the resident’s report that she had experienced racism from its staff.
The resident has stated that she experienced discrimination from the landlord based on her race. Whether or not the Equalities Act (2010) has been breached by the landlord is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court, not the Ombudsman. The resident could contact Citizen’s Advice if she needs assistance regarding legal action.
The resident’s allegations of discrimination have not been considered within this report and any references to this complaint are made only to provide context.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and has lived in a 3-bed house rented from the landlord since 2011. The property has a flat ‘green roof’, also called a ‘living roof’ as they are covered with vegetation planted over a waterproof membrane.
In May 2020 the resident reported to the resident that she was experiencing water ingress from her roof. The landlord has carried out several repairs to the roof but the resident reports that she continues to experience water ingress, damp and mould.
In November 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that her built-in oven, which had been supplied by the landlord, was not working. On attending to repair the oven the contractor found that there was heat damage to the oven surround.
The resident has raised several complaints regarding water ingress, damp and mould, and her cooker.

Scope of the investigation

The resident made 3 separate stage 1 complaints to the landlord between March 2021 and December 2021:
1. 8 March 2021 – complaint regarding water ingress through the roof and a faulty oven. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 31 March 2021 and the resident requested an escalation to stage 2 of the process. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 10 February 2022.
2. 17 June 2021 – complaint regarding water ingress from the roof. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 20 July 2021.
3. 14 December 2021 – complaint regarding water ingress from the roof. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 31 May 2022.
The resident made a further stage 1 complaint to the resident on 12 August 2022 regarding a separate issue. This issue has not been considered during this investigation as the landlord complaint was made after the resident’s case with this Service was duly made.
This Service has asked the landlord to provide an explanation of why it had raised 3 separate complaints as all complaints referred to the issues set out in her first complaint. The landlord stated that it raised separate complaints because the resident had “sent a large number of emails to a wide range of officers…[and] often raises a number of different points with each different set of personnel”. The landlord said it believed that separating the “individual points of concern” into separate complaints would assist the resident in understanding its communications. The landlord said that the resident “frequently disagrees with and mis-interprets the information that is provided to her” and that by keeping the complaints separate it could assist her in the “progression of her concerns”. The landlord stressed that “At no point where we trying to put barriers in place to prevent [the resident] from progressing through the complaints process.”

Repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to keep in good repair and working order, the structure of the property. This would include the roof of the property. Section 11 (6) of the same Act places an obligation on the resident as a secure tenant to allow the landlord access to carry out required repairs.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will deal with urgent repairs within 1 to 5 working days and ‘non-urgent’ repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s access procedure states that where there is a statutory or regulatory requirement, or health and safety reason to carry out a repair or enter a property, it will pursue legal means to gain entry to its properties.

Complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 8 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and said that she had first reported water ingress from her flat roof in May 2020 and contractors had attended and said it was caused by leaves on her roof. She said that in winter 2020 contractors had attended and “took 3 layers off the roof, dried underneath it and put the same 3 layers back on”. This had not stopped water, wind and cold from entering the property. The resident stated numerous times that she believed that the landlord’s failure to complete the repair was “a direct racist act”.
The resident contacted the landlord by email on 8 March 2021 to make a formal stage 1 complaint. She stated:
1. The landlord had “refused” to repair a hole in her ceiling which had been ongoing for 10 months.
2. The landlord’s staff had “ridiculed” the resident’s Irish accent, asking her to repeat things and saying they did not understand her. The resident believed the landlord’s “refusal to do this repair is a racist act”.
3. The landlord’s disability team had installed a faulty built-in oven in the property which caused a fire. The landlord had not released the independent electrician’s assessment of the oven. The landlord had offered to replace the oven with the same make and model and the resident had refused “due to the house fire that could have killed both me and my children”. She had instead asked that she be allowed to purchase her own oven and that the landlord reimburse the cost of this.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2021. The response stated:
1. The resident had first reported an issue with her roof on 7 May 2020. The landlord had carried out repairs on 14 May 2020 which appeared to be successful as no further water ingress was reported until 21 January 2021. The landlord attended on 29 January 2021 and carried out further repairs.
2. In March 2021 the resident reported further water ingress and a specialist “green roof contractor” was commissioned. The contractor inspected the roof on 16 March 2021 and made recommendations, the landlord was awaiting quotes for the recommended works.
3. Also on 16 March 2021 the landlord’s property services officer had inspected the front bedroom ceiling and the meter readings taken “did not indicate that the area was significantly wet, but slightly damp” despite it raining at the time.
4. The landlord’s repair service had “acted appropriately in trying to resolve the issue of water ingress”. It had carried out 2 repairs within a reasonable timescale, it was “unfortunate” that the repairs had not resolved the issue and the landlord had therefore commissioned a specialist contractor as it had promised to do. The roof repairs would be carried out when the landlord received a quote from the contractor and it would update the resident when it had a date for the works to start. Internal repairs would be completed when lockdown restrictions were eased.
5. There was “no evidence to support [the resident’s] claims that the repairs service have been racist or have lied…”
6. The resident had requested that her flat roof be changed to a pitched roof – this had been considered but would not be carried out. The roof was installed to the “current regulations at that time” and was “considered sufficient although needing a repair”.
7. The landlord was sorry that some of the resident’s belongings had been damaged by the water ingress. Residents were advised to take out their own contents insurance for such instances but if she did not have any insurance she could make a claim with the landlord’s insurance provider who would assess liability. It provided its insurance details.
8. In November 2014 the landlord had installed a fitted oven as part of adaptations to the property. The resident had reported on 22 November 2020 that the oven was no longer working and the landlord arranged for its contractor to replace the oven on 25 November 2020. When the contractor removed the oven it noted “the bottom of the oven housing was heat damaged”. The resident felt that the “oven fitting was defective due to a fault on the part of the [landlord’s] contractor when the oven was originally fitted” and she said she did not want a replacement at that time.
9. The resident requested an electrical check of the property on 27 November 2020, this was completed on 1 December 2020. The report showed the electrical installation was satisfactory.
10. On 4 December 2020 the landlord removed the old oven and scorched oven housing and installed the resident’s new oven.
11. On 1 February 2021 the landlord’s contractor collected the oven and took it to an independent testing facility. Testing was carried out and the report provided to the landlord on 12 March 2021. The report stated that the heat damage to the oven housing “most likely occurred as a result of a thermal barrier (aluminium foil or similar) being placed in the base of the oven”. It stated that the user instructions for the oven warned against placing tin foil and baking sheets on the base of the oven as this could “cause heat damage to the surface on which the oven is installed”.
12. The landlord had offered to replace the oven in November 2020. As no fault was found with the oven the landlord offered the resident £130 – the amount it would have cost it to replace the oven itself.
On 8 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord stating that she was not satisfied with its stage 1 complaint response as she stated that the landlord had lied in its response. She said that she would provide reasons for her escalation request “shortly”.
On 17 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and stated she wanted to “make an official first stage formal complaint” regarding the water ingress from her roof. For clarity this will be referred to as the resident’s second complaint.
On 20 July 2021 the landlord provided its response to the resident’s second formal complaint. It stated:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing a complaint response.
2. The landlord had attended numerous times in relation to water ingress from the roof and had arranged for a specialist contractor to attend.
3. Repairs identified by the specialist contractor were carried out on 14 April 2021.
4. On 26 May 2021 the landlord carried out dye testing to determine if the roof repairs had been successful. No signs of the dye were found and there were no signs of water stains or damp to the rear bedroom walls or ceiling.
5. Therefore the landlord was satisfied that there was no further water ingress from the roof and the resident was experiencing condensation.
6. The landlord would carry out:
  1. mould washes to the second bedroom and the bathroom and seal and paint the ceiling and walls
  2. repair the damaged plaster in the front bedroom
  3. paint the front bedroom ceiling.
On 5 November 2021 the resident’s local MP, having been contacted by the resident, asked the landlord to provide an update regarding the resident’s roof repair. The landlord responded on 15 November 2021 and assured the MP that the repair would be scheduled.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 November 2021 and enquired about her availability the following week for its contractor to attend. The resident responded on the same day outlining her availability.
On 23 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and stated she had not heard from the landlord or its contractor regarding the hole in her roof. She said the property was “freezing” and her children were getting “chest colds and coughs” due to the outstanding repair. She also said she was experiencing a “financial burden” due to having to have her heating on all the time. The landlord replied to the resident the next day and stated that the contractor would attend on 1 December 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 December 2021 and said that the specialist roofing contractor had just left but that no repairs had been completed. She said that there was “black stuff and dirty water” dripping into her room. The resident asked the landlord to provide “alternative roofing structures” to the flat roof and to provide “recompense for the damage…and the extra energy bills”. The landlord responded on the same day and advised that it was awaiting information from the contractor and would contact the resident once it had received this.
On 6 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update. She stated that the “black stuff and dirty water …coming into [her] property” was preventing her from sleeping.
On 7 December 2021 the resident’s MP again contacted the landlord asking for an update on the roof repair.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 8 December 2021 stating that she had received a text message from the repairs team stating that a repair would be carried out on 24 December 2021. She asked what the repair appointment related to. She also told the landlord that the specialist roofing contractor had told her that the “only way to really permanently repair a hole in a “green roof” is to take parts of the roof off completely piece by piece”.
On 13 December 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and asked if a different contractor could attend on 15 December 2021 or 16 December 2021 to inspect the roof as it had had “issues” with the original contractor.
The resident made a further formal complaint to the landlord on 14 December 2021 by email. For clarity this will be referred to at the resident’s third complaint. She stated that the landlord had failed to:
1. repair the roof
2. install “temporary roof protection”
3. install 2 more radiators to the property
4. reimburse the resident for “excessive energy bills” and damage to personal belongings
5. apologise for the impact on the health or herself and her children due to damp.

The resident asked the landlord to investigate why it had used “soil and grass” roofs instead of standard roofs.

The landlord responded to the resident’s MP on 17 December 2021 and advised that “a contractor would be attending that day to complete repairs on the roof”.
On 21 December 2021 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord who “apologised for providing misinformation” and said that a contractor would need to attend to report on the repairs required. On 4 January 2022 the landlord advised the MP that the contractor would attend on 6 January 2022. The MP asked the landlord for an update on 6 January 2022 and the landlord confirmed that its contractor had attended and they were awaiting its report.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s first formal complaint on 10 February 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s email of 8 April 2021 but said it had not received any further contact from the resident regarding her reasons for wanting to escalate her complaint. The landlord stated that:
1. An independent examination of the oven had taken place and the damage was caused by the oven not being used “safely in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions”.
2. The events and actions taken following the resident’s reports of the oven not working had been set out in the stage 1 response.
3. It confirmed its offer of £130 compensation and stated this was its final position. It advised the resident she could contact the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord emailed the landlord’s chief executive and stated that she wanted to escalate her complaint to “stage 3”. She said the landlord continued to refuse to fix her roof and repair the hole in her bedroom ceiling. She also stated that the landlord “deliberately” delayed in responding to her stage 2 complaint for 10 months which caused her and her children “extreme discomfort, harm and mental and physical harm”. The resident stated that the landlord had made “false claims” that the resident had refused entry for the repairs unless a female contractor attended. She said that whilst it was true she had requested a female operative, she had accepted the information when she was advised that the contractor did not have a female operative. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 March 2021 and 15 March 2021 chasing a response to her ‘stage 3 complaint’.
On 31 March 2022 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord’s chief executive to “stress that the roof had still not been repaired and to request confirmation of whether [the resident] had exhausted [the landlord’s] complaints process”. The MP stated that she did not receive a response.
On 8 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and stated that a specialist contractor would commence works to her roof on 14 April 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident and attached a letter responding to her stage 3 complaint request on 4 May 2022. Within the letter the landlord stated that it did not have a stage 3 complaint stage and signposted her to this Service. It acknowledged that its stage 2 complaint response “did not address the roofing issues raised previously” and said that this was because the resident had not provided “specific details” of why she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord stated that the resident had made 2 further complaints regarding the roof and ceiling repairs:
1. 17 June 2021 – this was responded to on 20 July 2021, the complaint was not upheld.
2. 14 December 2021 – the response to this complaint was still outstanding.

As the resident’s complaint of 14 December 2021 was out of the landlord’s response timescales this was a “Complaint Handling Service Failure”. The landlord also acknowledged that it had failed to handle the resident’s stage 2 complaint correctly as it was 10 months late in providing a response. The landlord said that it would provide a response to the complaint about the roof repairs by 11 May 2022 and clarified that its compensation offer related only to the oven complaint. It offered the resident a total of £280 comprising: £50 for time and trouble, £100 for late responses to 2 complaints, and £130 for the oven.

The landlord emailed the resident on 6 May 2022 and asked when she would be available to provide access for the required repairs. The resident responded on 9 May 2022 and said that the works that the landlord had ordered were a “patch up job” and not a permanent resolution to the leak. She stated that the leak had been caused by the landlord installing solar panels to the green roof and because it had carried out no maintenance of the roof during the 11 years she had lived in the property. The resident said that the landlord had proposed “installing plastic sheeting between [the] bedroom ceiling and the roof” but she wanted the roof to be fully replaced. She also stated that there was water ingress from her wooden window and door frames.
On 18 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again and asked for a response to her previous email. She asked when the landlord would repair her roof and stated that she believed the delay was due to the fact she was disabled and Irish and had 2 disabled children.
The landlord replied on 20 May 2022 and stated that it wanted to cut out a section of the plaster board to the bedroom ceiling in order to access the leaking pipe. It stated it would then install a “plastic membrane” and also temporary plastic sheeting over the hole in the ceiling plaster board to allow the plaster board to dry out before it was repaired. The landlord asked the resident to confirm her availability for the repair. It also said that it was sorry that the resident felt she had been discriminated against however there was “no evidence to support your suggestion that you have been treated unfairly”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2022 and stated that the works the landlord was proposing would not resolve the leaking roof and that external works were required. She stated that she was available any time to provide access for external repairs. The resident also said that the landlord had failed to maintain the roof twice yearly as “recommended by the manufacturer”.
On 31 May 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s third complaint. The letter was 7 pages long and stated:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response.
2. The resident first reported issues with water ingress from the roof in May 2020. A repair was carried out on 13 May 2020. This appeared to be successful as no water ingress was reported for a period of 8 months.
3. The resident reported water ingress again on 21 January 2021. A repair was carried out on 29 January 2021. At this time “neither an inspection or repairs to the hole in your front bedroom ceiling were undertaken” – the landlord considered this an “oversight and service failure”.
4. On 9 February 2021 the resident reported that she was still experiencing water ingress. A specialist inspection was carried out on 16 March 2021 – this was delayed as scaffolding was required for the inspection. The inspection found that a plastic pipe which contained cables for the solar panels was loose and that the previous repairs had now failed. Repairs recommended by the specialist roofing contractor were carried out on 14 April 2021.
5. A further water dye test was carried out on 26 May 2021 to determine whether the repair had been successful. It was confirmed on 17 June 2021 that there was no evidence of dye. Repairs were therefore ordered to repair the hole in the resident’s ceiling and carry out a mould wash though the landlord noted that these had not been carried out.
6. On 22 October 2021 the resident reported further water ingress to the front bedroom and her son’s bedroom. The landlord inspected on 25 October 2021 and noted dampness to both bedroom ceilings.
7. An inspection was carried out by a specialist contractor on 17 December 2021 – the inspection was delayed due to a cyber-attack experienced by the contractor. On 6 January 2022 subcontractors attended and confirmed that the previous repairs were still successful but carried out a repair to the parapet wall which was found to be retaining water.
8. A further dye test was carried out on 27 January 2022. This confirmed that the roof repairs had been successful however it was noted that there was an issue with “condensation forming in and around pipework containing the solar panel cables”. It also noted condensation in the resident’s son’s bedroom due to lack of air circulation.
9. The landlord noted that the issues noted by the subcontractor regarding condensation in the solar panel cabling pipework was not actioned until March 2022.
10. The landlord had carried out repairs in “good faith this it would resolve the water penetration”. The cause of the water penetration – condensation forming in the pipework containing solar panel cables – was “unusual and unexpected” and therefore a process of elimination had been required to identify the issue.
11. The arranging of the necessary repairs were “unduly delayed on a number of occasions” and this was a service failure. This had led to the resident having to “chase the repairs team beyond what [it] would consider to be reasonable”. It therefore increased its previous offer of £200 for repair delays to £500.
12. The resident was asked to contact the landlord to agree a start date for the required repair works.
13. It advised that the resident’s request to remove the solar panels and install a pitched roof were not necessary to resolve the issues and would not be carried out. The landlord installed green roofs as part of its climate mitigation strategy which was in line with the government’s sustainability strategy.
14. It acknowledged that the resident had requested that “temporary roof protection” be installed in December 2021. This was not something the landlord could do in every case as due to the “minimal level of water ingress being experienced” the landlord did not feel that it was appropriate in this case. A plastic cover for the hole in the ceiling was offered in October 2021 but the resident did not provide access for this to be installed on the appointed date.
15. The landlord’s insurance team would send the resident a claim form which she would need to complete in order to make a claim for damaged belongings.
On 14 June 2022 the resident’s complaint was referred to this Service by her local MP.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 2 July 2022 and stated that her roof had still not been fixed. She reiterated that the landlord had not carried out twice yearly maintenance to “remove weeds and any blockages from the roof drainage system” which was recommended by the manufacturer. The resident said that her availability was limited due to taking her disabled son to daily appointments but that the landlord could attend any day to “repair from the outside”.
On 11 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and stated that it was treating her email of 2 July 2022 as an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. The resident replied on 13 July 2022 and said that she had not requested an escalation of her complaint.
On 15 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed that it had withdrawn the resident’s stage 2 complaint and that she should be aware that she had “not yet completed the formal complaints procedure” in relation to the roof leak. The landlord confirmed that it offered the resident £130 compensation for the oven and £150 due to the delay in providing a complaint response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 July 2022 and stated that she had requested a stage 2 complaint response. She emailed the landlord again on 12 August 2022 and said that she had requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the process. This Service has not seen evidence that the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 after she told the landlord on 13 July 2021 that she had not asked for the complaint to be escalated.
On 6 September 2022 the landlord responded to the resident and advised that it had not provided a stage 2 complaint response as the resident had advised on 13 July 2022 that she had not asked for a stage 2 complaint to be logged. It asked her to confirm her availability for the week commencing 12 September 2022 for internal and external works to the roof.

Events after the period of investigation

This Service has seen a large amount of communication between the resident and landlord regarding the roof repair following the completion of the landlord’s complaint procedure. As these communications were outside the period of investigation, they have not been summarised however this Service is aware that the resident continues to report water ingress, damp and mould.
The landlord stated that it had attempted on “numerous occasions” to access the resident’s property to carry out repairs but that the resident had not provided access. It said it had therefore reminded the resident of her obligations under the tenancy agreement to allow the landlord access to carry out repairs. The resident had advised the landlord that, due to her caring for her disabled son, she could only provide access for internal repairs after 3pm. The landlord stated that this was not practical as this would not allow sufficient time to complete the repairs.

Assessment and findings

This Service recognises that this situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced a leak and associated damp and mould to her property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the complaint relate to the impact of the living conditions on the health of the resident and her child. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate and award damages, this would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.

Response to the resident’s reports of water ingress from her roof and the resulting damage to her ceiling, and damp and mould.

The landlord accepts that the resident has experienced intermittent water ingress from her green roof since May 2020 and it has carried out several investigations and repairs to the roof since this time.
The landlord attended in May 2020, within a week of the issue being reported by the resident and carried out a repair. It was reasonable that the landlord concluded at this time that the repair had been successful as the resident did not report any further water ingress until January 2021, more than 7 months later.
Following the resident’s reports of further water ingress in January 2021, the landlord attended within 6 working days and carried out further repairs to the roof. While this was slightly outside the landlord’s 5 working day target timeframe within its repair policy, this Service considers that this was reasonable and prompt.
The landlord has acknowledged that following the first 2 repairs, it failed to carry out follow-on works to repair the hole in the resident’s front bedroom ceiling. This was a failing and has caused the resident to invest unnecessary time and trouble in chasing for this repair to be carried out.
Following the second repair the resident reported water ingress one month later in February 2021. The landlord decided to commission a specialist green roof contractor to inspect and repair the roof. We consider that this was a sensible course of action as 2 previous repairs had failed to bring about a lasting resolution. The specialist contractor attended a month later to inspect the roof, the landlord has stated that this delay was due to the requirement for scaffolding to be installed. The specialist contractor carried out repairs in April 2021.
The following month, in May 2021, the landlord carried out dye testing to satisfy itself that the roof repairs had been successful, this was sensible. The testing showed no dye or signs of damp or water staining to the bedroom, it was therefore reasonable that it concluded that the specialist repairs had been successful.
In July 2021 the landlord stated that it would carry out mould washes and repair the plastering and décor to the bedroom. This Service has not seen evidence that these works were carried out and this is unreasonable and a service failure.
In October 2021 the resident reported further water ingress. The landlord inspected within a week and noted damp in both bedroom ceilings. In December 2021 the specialist contractor carried out a further inspection. The landlord states that this 2-month delay was caused by a cyber-attack experienced by the contractor. This Service does not consider this to be a satisfactory justification of such a delay after the resident had already experienced intermittent water ingress over a prolonged period. We consider that, if the landlord’s first choice of contractor was not able to attend within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord should have commissioned a different contractor.
In November 2021 the resident clearly stated to the landlord that, as a result of the hole in her bedroom ceiling, her property was “freezing” and that she had been placed under an additional “financial burden” due to having to have her heating on all the time. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord considered this issue in either its response to the repair or its complaint handling. This was a failing.
In December 2021 the specialist contractor carried out repairs to the parapet wall. Dye tests the following month confirmed that the repairs were successful but noted an issue with condensation forming on pipework for the solar panel cables and further condensation in the resident’s son’s bedroom due to lack of air circulation.
The issues noted by contractor regarding condensation on the solar panel cabling pipework was not actioned until March 2022. This was an unreasonable delay of 3 months.
Between 6 December 2021 and 31 March 2022 the resident and her local MP contacted the landlord requesting an update on the repair on 7 occasions. The landlord failed to respond to the requests within a timely manner, often taking 1 to 2 weeks to provide a response. This caused to resident to invest unnecessary time and trouble and caused her to feel ignored by the landlord which added to her distress.
This Service acknowledges that sometimes repeated attendance is required to diagnose and resolve repair issues. It is also accepted that the cause of the water ingress – condensation in the solar panel pipework – was unusual and that, as the landlord stated, a process of elimination was required to identify the issue. We consider that it was unreasonable however that it took the landlord almost 2 years to resolve the water ingress which was causing damp to the bedrooms that the resident and her child slept in.
It is noted that, in October 2021 the landlord offered to install a plastic cover to the hole in the resident’s bedroom ceiling but the resident did not provide access for this to be installed on the appointed date. We consider that, while it was the resident’s responsibility to allow access for the appointment, this was almost 18 months after the resident first reported water ingress and the landlord should reasonably have offered to install the plastic cover earlier.
The resident has requested that the landlord remove the solar panels and install a pitched roof. The landlord has denied this request, stating that these works were not necessary to resolve the issues with water ingress. and would not be carried out. This Service considers that, as the roof is repairable, the landlord is not obligated to replace it.
The resident has stated that some of her belongings were damaged by the water ingress. The landlord has advised the resident that, if she did not have any home contents insurance, she could make a claim on the landlord’s provider. It provided its insurance details to the resident. This Service considers that this was a reasonable response.
The resident has stated that she continues to experience issues with water ingress, damp and mould. The landlord has stated that it has tried to inspect and repair the issue several times but the resident has no provided access. The resident has stated that she can only provide access after 3pm due to caring for her disabled son. This Service understands the resident’s caring responsibilities are a priority but would encourage the resident to work with the landlord to resolve the repair issues at the property. As the landlord has correctly pointed out, the resident is obligated under the terms of the tenancy to provide access for repair works.
Overall, the landlord has unreasonably delayed on several occasions to resolve the water ingress to the property. While this Service accepts that some of the delays were reasonable, many were within the control of the landlord. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and her MP during the repair period and this added to the resident’s distress and caused her unnecessary time and trouble. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the water ingress and associated repairs.

Handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty oven.

As the landlord had installed the fitted oven as part of adaptations to the property, it accepts that it was responsible for the maintenance of the oven.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports that the oven was no longer working and arranged for its contractor to attend to replace the oven within 3 days. We consider that this was a timely response and it was within the landlord’s repair timescales.
When the contractor was removing the oven, it found heat damage to the oven housing and, due to concerns about safety, the resident refused the landlord’s offer of a replacement at that time. The landlord carried out an electrical check to the property at the request of the resident due to her safety concerns. This action was reasonable and sensible.
The resident requested that testing be carried out on the oven as she believed it had a fault. The landlord arranged for independent testing to be carried out despite not being obligated to do so, this was resolution focussed. The testing identified that that the heat damage was caused by the resident using the oven otherwise than in accordance with the user guidance. Therefore, there was no service failure on behalf of the landlord.
Despite there being no service failure on behalf of the landlord, it installed the new oven purchased by the resident and offered the resident £130. The landlord therefore did more than it was obligated to do and was resolution focussed. There was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s oven replacement.

Complaint handling.

The landlord made her first stage 1 complaint regarding water ingress and her broken oven to the landlord in March 2021. The landlord provided a thorough, 5-page response to the complaint 17 days later. This was outside of the timeframe set out within the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which was in place at the time of the complaint which stated that the landlord should provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days.
The resident made clear to the landlord that she was not happy with the stage 1 complaint response on 8 April 2021. The landlord did not provide a stage 2 complaint response until 10 February 2022 – more than 8 months later. This delay was excessive and unreasonable.
The resident raised her second stage 1 complaint in June 2021, this was 2 months after she had requested that her first complaint be escalated to stage 2 but had received no response. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it stated it has responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of the leaking roof.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident said that she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 3. While the landlord correctly advised the resident in May 2022 that it did not have a third stage to its complaint procedure, it nevertheless increased its compensation offer.
The resident raised a third stage 1 complaint in December 2021, 8 months after she requested that her first complaint be escalated. The landlord did not provide a response until 5 months later in May 2022. This was a further excessively prolonged delay and was unreasonable.
The landlord’s third and final stage 1 complaint response was extremely thorough at 7 pages long. The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for several undue delays to the repair to her roof which it acknowledged was a service failure. It also apologised for failures in communication and acknowledged that the resident had been forced to repeatedly request updates which the landlord should have proactively provided. It was right that the landlord made these apologies.
By July 2022 the landlord had provided 3 ‘stage 1’ complaint responses relating to the water ingress from the roof over a period of 16 months. In July 2022 however the landlord advised the resident that she had “not yet completed the formal complaints procedure” in relation to the roof leak. This was incorrect. The landlord failed to include the water ingress in its stage 2 complaint response in February 2022 despite the resident clearly being unhappy and the substantive issue of the roof leak remaining.
This Service acknowledges that the resident in this case has asked for several separate complaints to be logged relating to the same issue. We also acknowledge that the resident has sent many communications in this case to several different individuals and departments within the landlord. Managing such communications can be challenging but doing so effectively is part of good complaint handling and is the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord has stated that its intention was to assist the resident in her understanding of the complaint response. We consider that, by logging 3 separate complaints relating to the same issues and responding to these complaints concurrently, the landlord’s complaint handling has in fact caused greater confusion. This has caused unnecessary obstruction to the process and delayed the resident’s right to access the Service. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress from her roof and resulting damage to her ceiling, damp and mould.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty oven.

Reasons

The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing and caused unnecessary distress to the resident. It also caused unnecessary time and trouble and delayed the resident’s access to this Service by an excessively prolonged period of 8 months. This Service does not consider that the compensation offered provided the resident with sufficient financial redress for the prolonged delays and communication failures.
The landlord delayed unreasonably on a number of occasions to resolve the water ingress from the roof and the resulting damage to the resident’s bedrooms.
Despite there being no service failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty oven, it installed the new oven purchased by the resident and offered the resident £130. This was more than the landlord was obligated to do and was resolution focussed.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £800 comprising:
1. £100 for time and trouble caused by complaint handling failings.
2. £100 for distress caused by complaint handling failings.
3. £100 for time and trouble caused by the landlord’s communication failures during the repair of the roof leak.
4. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays in resolving the resident’s reports of water.
5. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offers of compensation for the water ingress and complaint handling failures. If the landlord has already paid the resident this amount, this should be deducted from the amount ordered and the landlord should pay the resident the remaining amount.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to contact the resident and provide an appointment (giving reasonable notice allowing the resident to work around childcare and medical appointments) to carry out a full survey of the condition of the green roof and rooms impacted by damp and mould to identify any required maintenance. The roof survey should be carried out by a green roof specialist. Within 4 weeks of the date of the survey, the landlord should agree with the resident mutually convenient appointments for it to complete any identified repairs to the roof and bedrooms.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to review its approach to raising and responding to multiple concurrent complaints from the same resident. The review should consider whether this practice causes unnecessary confusion, particularly when the issues of complaint are linked.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident £130 towards the cost of replacing her oven as offered in its first stage 1 complaint response.