Sheffield City Council (202110792)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110792

Sheffield City Council

30 August 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 handling of:
1. A leak affecting the communal area and the associated remedial repairs.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the leaseholder of a flat in a mixed tenure residential block. The landlord is the freeholder of the block and responsible for the repair and maintenance of the communal areas as well as those flats occupied by its tenants.
On 10 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to report damp and mould in the communal stairwell of the block. She said this had appeared “suddenly and rapidly” 2 weeks earlier and that it had been reported previously by her and other residents.
On 28 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about multiple issues within the block. As part of this, she described “a longstanding leak” from one of its tenanted properties which was causing damage to the wall in the communal stairwell and the flat of a vulnerable neighbour.
On 9 August 2021, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to her complaint about its handling of the leak into the communal area. The landlord acknowledged receipt of this on 13 August 2021.
On 27 August 2021, the resident contacted this Service to advise that she had still not received a response to her complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord again, asking it to respond to the complaint by 6 September 2021.
On 31 August 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident regarding her complaint. The landlord informed her that its understanding was that the leak had been resolved, however the resident said this was not the case. The landlord apologised for this, and said it would investigate further. The landlord’s call notes record that the resident would be contacting this Service to advise that the landlord had “contacted her and addressed her concerns”.
On 2 September 2021, the landlord visited the block and inspected the communal stairwell. It recorded that the leak appeared to be resolved, but there were water marks on the wall which could be from previous damage. The landlord noted that cracks within the wall had been filled and it just appeared to need redecorating. The landlord also visited the resident’s neighbour (whose property the resident had said was impacted by the leak) who stated they were no longer experiencing any issues with leaks.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord informed this Service that the resident had withdrawn her complaint following the phone call of 31 August 2021. The resident later advised that this was not the case, and so this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to provide a written response to her complaint by 4 October 2021.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that all relevant repairs had been completed and there was no outstanding work within the block.
On 3 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord requesting to escalate her complaint. She expressed dissatisfaction that the stage 1 complaint response had not addressed the failures of the landlord’s repairs service, nor its poor service towards her more generally. She said the leak had never been fixed, despite being reported a year ago, and attached photos taken earlier that day – which she said showed the leak still ongoing and unrepaired damage to the communal area. She requested that the landlord pay compensation to all residents of the block for its failure to maintain the communal area.
On 11 January 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord requesting that it respond to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process by 18 January 2022.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 final complaint response. It said that:
1. It had carried out 6 repairs in a tenanted flat in the block as a result of the leak, with the last one completed in April 2021 – this had resolved the issue. All repairs had been reported and actioned in line with its policy.
2. The damage to communal area caused by the leak was still outstanding and it apologised that this had not been addressed sooner.
3. It had arranged for the affected communal wall to be replastered and repainted. This work was due to commence on 3 February 2022.
4. Its staff could have taken greater ownership of the issue to help the resident progress things, and the level of service she had received was below its expected standard.
5. In order to “put things right”, it would not be adding her portion of the costs of the repairs to the communal walls to the resident’s service charge account, and would also waive whichever was the greater out of her administration or management charges for 2022.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

On 8 April 2022, the resident referred her complaint to this Service for investigation. She asserted that the leak had never been repaired and continued to affect the communal wall, where damp was still spreading. She also stated that the landlord had not completed the work to replaster and repaint the wall as it committed to in its stage 2 response.
On 26 May 2022, the landlord repaired a waste pipe in a tenanted property in the block, which it identified as the source of the leak into the communal area.
On 18 July 2022, when providing information for this investigation, the landlord advised this Service that it had offered the resident compensation of £350 for the time taken pursuing her complaint and the distress caused to her. It said it had arranged for work to replaster the communal wall to be carried out on 10 August 2022, and redecoration would be completed shortly afterwards.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

As part of her complaint to the landlord, the resident expressed dissatisfaction at its response to safeguarding concerns she had raised about a vulnerable neighbour, and the impact of the leaks upon this neighbour’s flat. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints about the actions or omissions of a landlord which have adversely affected the complainant in respect of their occupation of property. As this element of the complaint does not meet this criteria it cannot be considered in this investigation.
The resident has also expressed a desire for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation to all residents within the block as an outcome of her complaint. The Scheme allows only for the Ombudsman to order/recommend compensation and apologies from the landlord to the individual bringing the complaint. This is therefore not an outcome that this Service is able to provide.

Leak and remedial repairs

The landlord’s repair logs show it first raised a repair for a leak into the communal area of the block on 4 January 2021. It raised 7 further repairs related to leaks either in the communal area, or impacting individual flats, between 13 January 2021 and 30 April 2021, all of which were attended within 24 hours. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response asserted that these had resolved the cause of the leak.
In her complaint, as sent to the landlord by this Service on 9 August 2021, and during its phone conversation with her on 31 August 2021, the resident made it clear she felt the leak had not been resolved and was still ongoing. The landlord appropriately agreed to investigate this and carry out an inspection of the communal area. However, it sent non-technical staff to inspect the wall and an affected flat on 2 September 2021. This brings into question the accuracy of its assessment that there was no evidence of an ongoing leak and that water marks on the wall were historic.
Prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord conducted a further inspection on 27 January 2022. This also failed to identify any issues with a leak and only diagnosed the communal wall as requiring replastering and redecorating.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 2 February 2022 and confirmed to the resident that work to repair the wall would commence the following day. This failed to happen and it is unreasonable that the landlord has provided no evidence that the resident was advised of this, or of the reason why.
On 26 May 2022, the landlord carried out a repair to a waste pipe within a flat which it identified as having been the cause of the leak into the communal area and a neighbouring flat. It is noted that the landlord has provided details of mitigating factors which made it difficult for its operatives to gain access to, and work effectively within, the property where this leak was located. However, a period of almost 18 months from the first report to final resolution of the leak represents an unreasonably long delay regardless of such issues.
The landlord advised that work to replaster and redecorate the communal wall was due to commence on 10 August 2022. Although it was appropriate to allow some time for any remaining water to permeate the wall and dry out, it is unclear why the landlord delayed in over 2 months before arranging to start remedial work to the wall.
At stage 1 of its complaints process, the landlord offered removal of charges from the resident’s service charge as a means of redress. Invoices provided to this Service indicate this amounted to £153.05. The landlord later offered the resident additional compensation of £350, bringing its total offer to £503.05. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact and is appropriate considering there is no evidence of a detriment to the resident’s enjoyment of her own flat.
The landlord has also acknowledged that it failed to deliver its services to the standard it would expect in this case, offered apologies to the resident and stated it has identified learning opportunities to communicate and develop going forwards (although it has not offered any detail as to the nature of these).
Although these actions can be said to provide reasonable redress for the resident, the landlord failed to resolve the substantive issue of her complaint until several months after it had issued its final response. It also did not fully acknowledge its failings, or make the increased offer of compensation until the case had been accepted by this Service for investigation. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. This is particularly the case where the landlord has not demonstrated specific learning points to ensure that similar failings occur in future.

Complaint handling

Although the resident contacted the landlord “to complain” on 28 March 2021, the majority of this email related to the behaviour of other residents within the block, and it could therefore reasonably be viewed as a service request for the landlord to address, rather than a complaint requiring logging under its internal complaints procedure.
This Service first wrote to the landlord on 9 August 2021, requesting that it address the matter of the leak and provide a written complaint response. Although the landlord acknowledged receipt of this communication, it failed to take appropriate action in logging the complaint or contacting the resident. This led to her returning to this Service for assistance and a further request being sent to the landlord on 27 August 2021.
Following this, the landlord took appropriate action in telephoning the resident on 31 August 2021 to clarify and discuss her issues of complaint. However, following this, the landlord incorrectly asserted that the resident had withdrawn her complaint. Although the call notes indicate the resident said she would contact this Service and advise that the landlord had addressed her concerns, they also note that she was awaiting further responses from other departments involved in the complaint. This does not indicate that she felt the complaint had been sufficiently resolved as to be withdrawn, and so it would have been appropriate to provide a written response still.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 4 October 2021, far beyond the 28 calendar day timescale its complaints policy allows. The response was provided by a different member of staff than had made the phone call on 31 August 2021. This indicates that the landlord had not been treating the complaint appropriately at that time and still attempting to resolve the issues informally even after this Service requested that it respond under its complaints procedure.
The stage 1 response lacked detail and context, stating only that there were no outstanding repair works for the block. It did not provide any details of previous action taken by the landlord to address the leak, and referred her to the phone call of 31 August 2021, whilst providing no details as to what was said in this phone call – of which the resident had no written record. This demonstrated that the landlord’s complaint investigation was not sufficiently thorough.
Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 3 December 2021, the landlord again failed to provide an appropriate response until chased by this Service on 11 January 2022. The stage 2 complaint response was provided on 2 February 2022, which was again well outside of its 28 calendar day timescale, even if making allowances for the Christmas period.
Although the stage 2 response was more thorough, and appropriately arranged a further inspection of the communal stairway, it inappropriately signposted the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) should she remain dissatisfied, rather than this Service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. A leak affecting the communal area and the associated remedial repairs.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Although the landlord was able to resolve the leak, arrange remedial work to the communal area and made a reasonable offer of compensation to the resident, it was not able to do this until several months after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure and been accepted for investigation by this Service.
The resident had to approach this Service multiple times for assistance in progressing her complaint with the landlord. The landlord incorrectly asserted that the resident had withdrawn her complaint, delayed unreasonably in providing responses at both stages of its process and provided an inadequate response regarding the leak at stage 1.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £600 compensation composed of:
  1. The £350 it previously offered for distress and inconvenience (if not already paid).
  2. £250 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the maladministration in its handling of her complaint.
2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the maladministration identified in this report.
3. Carry out a case review to identify learning points and missed opportunities in its handling of the leak and remedial repairs.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to ensure that complaint handling staff have a clear understanding of:
1. The roles and jurisdictions of the LGSCO and the Housing Ombudsman Service and signposting residents appropriately.
2. When it is appropriate to record a resident’s complaint as withdrawn and the importance of ensuring this is the resident’s intention.
The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions with regards to these recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.