Southampton City Council (201915276)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915276

Southampton City Council

28 February 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Water ingress in the loft at the property.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant at the property and is subject to the terms and condition in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has a vulnerable daughter who lives at the property with a number of serious heart issues and severe eczema.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy states that the residents must be kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident made a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should formally respond within 20 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a peer review of the landlord’s decision and the landlord should provide a response within 20 working days.
The tenant’s handbook highlights that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and outside of the home, including the floors, walls, stairs, roof, windows, drains and gutters. The repairs policy highlights that the landlord aims to perform non-emergency repairs within 25 days of the issue being reported by the resident, it will prioritise more vital repairs and try to perform the works within 10 days. Under the policy it is the resident’s responsibility to reduce condensation at the property through lifestyle changes.

Summary of events

The resident moved into the property in late 2019, a number of repair issues were identified through the landlord’s voids process and also by the resident once she moved into the residence. These repairs were completed inline with the landlord’s repairs and voids process and will not form part of this report.
On 27 February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and reported a significant leak from the loft at the property. The landlord advised that a plumber would be attending the property that day to check the loft and roof for any leaks.
On 27 February 2020, the plumbing contractor attended the property and checked the loft area and found no plumbing leaks. It advised that the property was habitable and that a roofing contractor was booked to inspect the roof on 28 February 2020.
On 28 March 2020, the property was reinspected by two of the landlord’s operatives and advised there was no evidence of any leaks at the property.
On 31 March 2020, the resident advised that she would like to make a formal complaint in relation to the leak at the property.
On 2 April 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and provided an update and advised that it was still trying to get the job information from the roofer who attended the resident’s property and to see if there were any recommendations following its inspections before issuing its stage one response.
On 21 April 2020, the landlord carried out a further inspection of the loft area for water leaks, it advised that it found no evidence of any water leaks to the roof or within the loft area itself. It also advised that there was no evidence of condensation around the loft hatch at the time of the visit. It discovered one of the external drains at the property was blocked and arranged for a contractor to fix the issue.
On 23 April 2020, a plumbing contractor attended the property and unblocked an external drainpipe.
On 4 May 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one formal response and addressed the following:
1. It stated that it attended the property on 21 April 2020 and found no evidence of any water leaks to the roof or within the loft area or any condensation.
2. It advised that there was an unrelated blocked external drain at the rear of the property which was unblocked by contractors on 23 April in line with its repair’s obligations.
On 27 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that there was still an issue with the condensation at the property.
On 30 July 2020, a roofing contractor attended the property and repointed the side and rear of the property in various areas.
On 14 August 2020, a contractor on behalf of the landlord attended the property and sealed the ceiling in the electric cupboard and performed works in the lounge and requested decorating vouchers for the resident. No leaks were found at the property at the time.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord contacted the resident on the advice of the Housing Ombudsman and provided an update in relation to her complaint and acknowledged that there had been a number of callouts/appointments that had been made to the property. It stated that a plumber had been called out a number of times, most recently on 17th of August 2020 but no leak as found. It asked the resident to provide further details in relation to the leak including if it was still ongoing, where it was coming from, if it happens when it rains or if it was constant.
On 24 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that it rained the previous night and water came through the loft and caused the property to get ‘wet, cold and damp’. Two of the landlord’s operatives attended the resident’s property the same day and inspected the roof and advised that no leaks were observed.
On 2 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that there was a leak coming from the property. The landlord agreed to attend the property and found no evidence of a leak. It advised that there were some water stains on the bedroom floor however the ceiling was dry.
On 1 December 2020, the resident made further complaints in relation to a leak coming from the loft at the property. The landlord attended the same day but there was no answer at the property and there appeared to be no moisture or signs of a leak on the outside of the property. The landlord wrote to the resident to schedule a further inspection.
On 19 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that an appointment was cancelled to inspect her roof due to Covid-19 and asked for a copy of the repairs history to see if there had been previous issues with a leaking roof. The landlord advised that it would enquire about getting the repairs history as a formal Subject Access Request might be needed.
On 20 January 2021, the resident reported that a contractor advised her that she had condensation and an air brick would need to be installed. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.
On 25 January 2021, the landlord attended the property after it had been raining and observed no leaks or wet patches on the ceiling. The landlord provided information on how to reduce condensation.
On 5 February 2021, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two final response and addressed the following:
1. The issue within the loft was inspected by several trades people and members of its staff. No leak was discovered via the fabric of the building including the roof, guttering or water tank. There were no structural defects within the internal plumbing or signs of water damage including mould.
2. It was determined that the likely cause was condensation due to environmental factors. It advised the resident of steps that could be taken to alleviate the condensation issue including opening windows to allow ventilation and carpeting areas of the house.
3. Upon request by the Housing Ombudsman the council have repeated the inspections and have additionally sent senior officers on a number of occasions from March 2020 to the present to inspect the possible cause of the water leaks reported by the resident. The cause of the condensation was determined to be environmental and the resident complaint was not upheld.
On 10 May 2020, the resident advised this service that she was no longer living at the property but wished to continue with her complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress.

Assessment and findings

The role of the Ombudsman in this situation is not to determine if there was water ingress at the property but to assess how the landlord responded to such reports. The resident raised a number of complaints in relation to a leak at the property, the landlord has an obligation under its repairs policy to repair and maintain the exterior and roof at the property and to complete any repairs within a 25–day time period.
The resident first raised the issues of a leak in February 2020, the landlord took a resolution focused approach and attended the property on two separate occasions with its repairs timescales and on neither occasion was it able to find a leak at the property. Following ongoing complaints from the resident between April 2020 and January 2021 the landlord had its plumbing and roofing specialist attend the property on at least seven occasions to inspect the resident’s roof and loft area which was appropriate and in line with its repairs obligations. The landlord performed preventative works to the roof and guttering in an attempt to address the issue. There were further reports from the resident and it was determined on all occasions that there was no evidence of water ingress at the property or damage to the roof or structure of the building that could cause a leak.
The landlord is able to rely upon the professional opinion of its contractors and by the contractors stating that there was no leak the landlord had taken adequate action to investigate the cause of the problem. When advised the problem could be caused by environmental condensation, which was the resident’s responsibility, it provided the resident with information and tips to combat the issue including heating and ventilation of the property.
Overall, given the number of times the landlord had suitably qualified professionals investigate the issues the landlord has demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its obligations in responding to the resident’s reports of leaks at the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There had been confusion by the resident in relation to what stage of the landlord’s complaint process her complaint was at which led to her bringing her complaint straight to this Service. This Service instructed the landlord to provide the resident with an update which caused a small delay in the complaints process however the landlord advised the resident and this Service in relation to the reason for the delay.
The documentation provided shows the initial formal complaint was made by the resident on 31 March 2020 and the landlord supplied a formal response on 4 May 2020. This represents a three-working delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage one response. The landlord expressed that the delay was due to it wanting to see if there were any works recommended by its contractors that needed to be performed at the property before providing a response, the landlord communicated this to the resident which was appropriate and in line with its complaint’s procedure.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 20 January 2021. The landlord provided the resident with its final response on 5 February 2021 in line with its obligations under its repairs policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. Reports of water ingress in the loft at the property.
2. Its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord took a resolution focused approach and investigated the resident’s reports in relation to water ingress on a number of occasions in line with its repairs policy. No faults were discovered and the landlord appropriately provided information about combating condensation at the property.
The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies at stage one of the complaints process however it appropriately advised the resident that it was waiting for its contractors to advise if repairs were needed at the property.