Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202412690)

Background

1. At the time of this complaint, the resident was the leasehold owner of a top floor flat. He has since purchased the freehold for the property from the landlord. He reported a roof leak to the landlord in January 2024. The landlord inspected, and concluded that there was a condensation issue rather than a roof leak. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s conclusion so made a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We find there has been:
   1. Maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord has shown it completed a damp inspection in the loft. While it was reasonable to conclude, based on that inspection, that there was a condensation issue, it has provided no evidence of a detailed roof inspection. Without that, it cannot reasonably rule out a roof leak (as a separate issue to the identified condensation). It has not shown it investigated the resident’s reports appropriately.
6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it’s 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.

What we have not considered

7. Our scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. Any events after the stage 2 response have not completed the complaints process so we will not consider them as part of this investigation (though we may refer to them for context).

Assessment

8. The resident says there had been a leak in the roof from December 2023 onwards. The earliest evidence of any report to the landlord is when it raised a works order to replace missing roof tiles on 29 January 2024, and to erect scaffolding on 6 February 2024. It then logged the reports of a leak on 21 February 2024. The landlord’s records are incomplete, and this has hampered our investigation. But in the absence of any evidence of a report in December 2023, we can only consider the landlord’s actions from January 2024 onwards.
9. The dispute is about whether there was a roof leak or a condensation issue caused by internal defects. The resident says it was a roof leak while the landlord says there was no leak and the water was condensation. Under the terms of the lease, roof leaks were the landlord’s responsibility, whereas condensation issues would be for the resident to fix.
10. It’s not our role to decide whether there was a roof leak or a condensation issue. Our role is to assess whether the landlord completed reasonable investigations, and made evidence-based decisions in response to the resident’s reports.
11. The landlord’s contractors inspected on 6 March 2024. They told the landlord there was a condensation issue, and no roof leak. A landlord is generally entitled to rely on the opinions of qualified contractors and operatives. In this case, however, the report provided is very limited. It includes no evidence that the contractors inspected the roof itself, rather than just the loft. There is also no evidence of taking any readings, with conclusions instead based on the direction water was running. The contractors also said their conclusions were ‘initial thoughts’ rather than a diagnosis of the problem. This does not indicate an adequate inspection.
12. The resident disputed the findings and told the landlord an independent roofer had confirmed there were issues with the ridge gap and chimney stack. He was not able to provide any report from his roofer. In response, the landlord booked a further inspection for 3 April 2024. This was a reasonable and resolution-focused step. But that visit is absent from the landlord’s repair records, demonstrating further record keeping failings.
13. In its summary to us, the landlord confirmed its roofing team attended and recommended an inspection of the chimney stack. It then booked scaffolding, and noted that it could not inspect the chimney stack without scaffolding. However, its records show it was still disputing there was any leak. This was unreasonable given the lack of a full inspection to that point, and when its roofing team had said inspection of the chimney stack was needed. The landlord then chose not to inspect the chimney stack. That decision was not in line with the advice of its contractors.
14. After the resident’s complaint, the landlord booked a joint inspection with its roofing and damp and mould teams for 29 May 2024. But it then failed to carry out a joint inspection. Its damp and mould team inspected, and looked at the inside of the loft. They used a protimeter and a thermal imaging camera, and confirmed there was a condensation problem in the loft. They said this was caused by problems with the insulation and a lack of ventilation. However, their inspection was limited to looking at damp and the loft. It was the roofers’ role to inspect the roof itself (to rule out or confirm any problems with the roof), and they failed to attend.
15. The landlord’s internal correspondence from the roofing team after this was both dismissive and defensive in tone. They said they had previously inspected, and maintained it was a condensation issue based on the damp inspection. This was despite their failure to turn up for a booked joint inspection, or to inspect the chimney (as was recommended in April 2024). They also failed to call the resident back about the inspection after confirming they would do so.
16. The landlord has sent its roofing contractors to the property since the stage 2 response. It said the contractors found 2 tiles that needed to be replaced, but they were not the cause of any roof leak. The resident disputed the works were sufficient, as the scaffolding used only went up at the back of the property. He said works were needed to the roof at both the front and back.
17. The landlord has not provided a copy of any report or inspection notes, despite us specifically requesting that information. So it has not shown how it determined that the roof was in good repair, or that it completed a reasonable inspection of all areas of the roof (particularly the ridge and chimney stack). It also has not shown it learned from the complaint. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak. We have considered what it needs to do to put things right.
18. The resident says that the landlord completed a new survey since his complaint, and that the survey identified numerous roof issues which meant the roof needed replacement. He says he has since purchased the freehold from the landlord, and replaced the roof. He says he wants compensation.
19. When the resident purchased the freehold, he also took on responsibility for roof repairs from the landlord. While the landlord has not shown that it completed a reasonable inspection in 2024, the resident has not provided any evidence which shows there was a roof leak rather than condensation at the time of the complaint, or that the roof needed to be replaced at that time. In the absence of any such evidence, we cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord is responsible for any costs the resident incurred in repairing or replacing the roof.
20. However, had the landlord completed a reasonable inspection of the roof itself (rather than just the loft) within a reasonable time, it could have conclusively determined if there was a roof leak or condensation (or both). Its failure to do so caused avoidable distress and inconvenience. The landlord must therefore pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused up to the point of its updated stage 2 response. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but cause no permanent impact. The landlord must also issue apologise to the resident.

21. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The timescales in the landlord’s complaints process match those set out in the Code.
22. The resident made a complaint on 26 April 2024, and escalated his complaint on 29 May 2024. The landlord investigated the complaint, and responded within the relevant timescales at both stages. We therefore find no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate and has hampered this investigation. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure it keeps clear, complete, and detailed records of repairs. This should include all reports, actions taken in response, and detailed inspection records. It would also benefit from ensuring those records are centralised, rather than relying heavily on internal emails.

Communication

24. The landlord’s communication was generally appropriate. But there were times it failed to appropriately update the resident, or to call him back after it confirmed it would do so. It should ensure it has mechanisms in place to ensure it regularly updates residents, and calls residents back when it says it will do so.