Southern Housing Group Limited (202207242)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207242

Southern Housing Group Limited

29 February 2024

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. the repairs to the resident’s property in relation to:
  1. the roof.
  2. the crack in the party wall.
2. the planned works to replace the roof.
3. the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The legal and policy context

The resident is a shared owner of the landlord who is a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the top floor of a block of 4 flats. The resident has disclosed that she is vulnerable due to her age and related health conditions. These led to her having to shield during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The landlord has been unable to provide the exact lease for the resident. It has provided an example lease. This says that the landlord is responsible for the repair and renewal of “the roof foundations and main structure of the property and all external parts … including all external and load-bearing walls …”.
The lease provides for payment towards a reserve fund through the service charge, defined in clause 4b. A further explanation of the reserve fund is contained within the service charge booklet provided to the resident with the service charge statement of actual expenditure. This confirms that the reserve fund is in place “to save toward expensive items, redecoration or major building repairs”. It further states that the landlord “will let [residents] know when these are required and withdraw money from this account.”
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure sets out the landlord’s general responsibility in respect of leaseholders and homeowners. This says that the landlord is responsible for “repairs to the internal structural elements of the building” and “repairs to the external structure and outside of the property.”
The procedure sets a 24 hour target for dealing with emergency repairs. Routine repairs are to be dealt with “as quickly as possible and at a time that suits [the resident].”
The landlord has a rechargeable works policy statement. This says that it will consult … in line with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, where it intends to undertake planned major works.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The policy says that for stage 2 its response will “usually be by telephone unless a different contact method has been requested…”. It further states that the outcome letter sent following the conclusion of stage 2 will be its final response.
In both cases, it says that if it is unable to meet this target it will notify the resident of the expected delays. The policy says that “this will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason or [the resident’s] agreement.” It has adopted the Housing Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint.
The landlord has a compensation policy accompanying its complaints policy. This says that the landlord will “make a payment when there is evidence that there has been a service failure that it is responsible for, that has caused loss, damage or inconvenience and have been recorded … as a complaint.” This includes a failure or delay in undertaking a repair. A framework is included for use by its staff to calculate any amount to be offered.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2017 about damage caused within her flat by a roof leak and ongoing issues of dampness. She made further calls on 1 and 2 February 2017. The landlord’s records show that arrangements were to be made for a scaffold to be erected to remove buddleia (a plant) from the roof. Its records do not capture if these works were completed. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 15 February 2017. He noted that there were water stains to various ceilings in the flat. He said that the landlord would not carry out repairs, but that this may be covered by the buildings insurance that was in place. A follow up letter was sent on 20 February 2017. The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 March 2017, having spoken with her insurer, who had provided her with different advice. The landlord’s case records note that the surveyor called the resident on 21 April 2017 and again on 4 May 2017. No detail of the content of these calls is recorded beyond a note to say that it was to “discuss [the] case and update her on the latest developments.”
The landlord has provided repair records. These contain no record of roof repairs at the property during 2017. No evidence has been presented as to whether a buildings insurance claim was made at that time by either party in respect of the roof and the damage caused to the resident’s flat.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 July 2018 to advise that the complete replacement of the roof was to be included within its programme for major repairs for the financial year 2019 to 2020. It further advised that it was unable to undertake temporary repairs to the left hand side of the roof, as it had previously done to the right side, due to lack of safe access to that part of the roof. It further said that a formal party wall agreement with her neighbour would need to be reached ahead of the roof replacement works. This was to allow it to put up access equipment on their side of the boundary.
On 18 November 2018, the landlord wrote to the resident. It advised that it was responding to correspondence from the resident dated 23 October 2018, in which she expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s management of the roof repairs. Within its letter, the landlord set out the difficulties it had encountered with putting up a full scaffold to allow access to the roof. It said that it had taken the decision to recommend that the roof be renewed. It noted that the staining within the resident’s flat indicated that there had been leaks in several different places over the last few years. This led it to believe that the roof was approaching the “end of its life cycle”. It said that there was a danger of creating further problems by carrying out repairs to the roof. It confirmed that the roof replacement was to be included in its programme for 2019 to 2020. It said that section 20 consultation was to be carried out. No evidence of the section 20 consultation has been provided to the Service. It is noted that within the landlord’s response at stage 2 of its complaints process it advised that the section 20 consultation began in June 2019.
On 19 August 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it had appointed an independent surveyor to carry out a condition survey for the roof replacement. It said that the surveyor would visit, along with a member of the landlord’s staff, on 28 and 29 August 2019. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that this visit went ahead and that plans for the replacement roof were issued in November 2019. The resident has said that these were sent to her on 30 January 2020.
On 23 March 2020, following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government announced the first nationwide lockdown in the United Kingdom. On 28 March 2020 the government issued guidance for landlords, tenants, and local authorities. This guidance recommended that “access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent repairs.”
The landlord’s repair records show that on 21 May 2020, the resident reported that the “loft hatch on the roof was open”. It further noted that it would need to access the loft to secure this. The record indicates that this was passed to the landlord’s day to day repairs contractor. There is no detail within the records of the completion of this repair. Internal correspondence and correspondence from the resident indicate that she declined access to her flat as she had not been notified of the appointment and she was shielding due to her health vulnerability. Further the resident said that her neighbour was able to pull the hatch back into place via their roof window.
The government provided updated guidance on 1 June 2020. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice”. It further said that “where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works”. It is a matter of record that a range of restrictions remained in place through 2020 and early 2021. Most legal limits on social contact were removed on 19 July 2021, alongside a change to guidance for those within the most vulnerable groups.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 March 2021 in response to a letter it had sent advising that the roof replacement works were to be postponed to the financial year 2021 to 2022. In this she set out the damage that had been caused to her flat by water ingress from the roof. She also said that there was a large crack in the wall on the landing which she believed was due to damp coming in from the outside wall. The resident further set out her personal circumstances in relation to her health and her wish to sell her flat to enable her to move closer to her family and friends. The landlord provided a response on 16 April 2021 by adding comments within the body of the resident’s original email.
On 6 April 2021, the landlord raised an order for its contractor to attend to “clear gutters around the building” that were “full of stuff causing it to leak”. There is no record as to when these works were completed.
The landlord has provided a copy of a report concerning the roof of the property dated May 2021. This says that an independent surveyor provided a feasibility study in December 2020 following a visit to the property. It said that it had been unable to access the attic space due to items stored in the loft. It further recorded that the main roof was in “a reasonable condition”, though there were signs of deterioration. It said that it would need to carry out a further internal inspection of the roof, but from the limited inspection it had done it found it to be in good condition. It noted that there was a service hatch in the roof and that there were signs that the frame was wet. This report listed repairs carried out to the roof in September 2016. It goes on to say that the resident had advised that water ingress was no longer a problem. She had said that she wished to sell her flat and wanted written confirmation from the landlord that the roof was “sound and does not leak.”
Through a series of internal emails between May and June 2021, it was noted that a repair was required to the roof hatch. Consideration was given as to which department should raise the repair works and how the area would be accessed. The resident’s reservations about allowing access to her property while COVID-19 restrictions remained in place was noted. In an email sent internally on 16 June 2021, it was said that the proposal was for the roof replacement works to be removed from its current programme. It said that it was “pointless replacing a roof at a great cost to leaseholders if it doesn’t actually need replacing.” Contact between the landlord and its independent surveyor between 2 and 16 June 2021, contained a request for the surveyor to “cast your mind back to the survey” and provide “an estimate of how many years the roof had left”. In its response the surveyor said that it did not “recall there being any live leaks” and said the roof had “another 5-7 years.”
On 7 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She reported that there was damp in her bedroom, having woken to find plaster on her bed. An inspection was arranged, and a request was made for the roof to be put back into the replacement programme due to “live leaks” and the identified need for major works to remedy these.
On 22 March 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about issues with the roof and internal damage to her flat. Within her complaint the resident provided a history of the issues which had been ongoing for several years. She said that she wished to sell her property and that the outstanding repairs and ongoing dampness were preventing her from doing so. She said that:
1. there had been no effective repairs carried out to either slope of the roof and that she had been left with water ingress, staining, and peeling plaster in both her bedroom and lounge.
2. works carried out in 2017 had been ineffective. No further repairs had been carried out until works to the chimney in December 2021. She was waiting to hear if further repairs would be carried out.
3. she had spoken with a neighbour who had undertaken works to his roof in late 2019/early 2020. She believed that these had resolved an issue around the shared area of the roof, having noted an area of damp drying in her property during March 2020.
4. section 20 consultation started in 2021 for roof replacement works was abandoned by the landlord. Furthermore, she had been told that the “physical fabric of the roof did not need any attention for the next 7 years.”
5. that she believed the landlord was in breach of the terms of the lease by not undertaking effective repairs.
6. she was concerned about a crack on the landing wall. She had spoken with her neighbour and believed this may relate to the party wall, and that her neighbour had been in contact with the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It further communicated with her on 6 April 2022, that it needed additional time to investigate the issues she had raised. It wrote again on 25 April 2022 to advise of the need for a further extension of time to complete its investigations. It said that it would respond within 10 working days. The landlord’s records show that the officer investigating the complaint expressed their concern that “it looks as if we may be batting the problems between reactive repairs and planned…”
Internal correspondence shows that arrangements were made for the landlord’s day to day repairs contractor to visit the resident’s flat on 19 April 2022 to assess the crack in the wall.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 9 May 2022. Part of this response is contained within its complaint case notes. This is however incomplete, and the landlord has confirmed that it does not have a complete copy of its response.
The record of its complaint response shows that the landlord apologised for the delay in its reply, noting that it was a complex case and that it had required information from “a number of business areas”. It said that:
1. the roof had been referred to its asset management team in 2017.
2. there were complexities in it being able to access the roof. This required a party wall agreement with a neighbour. This meant that repairs had not been carried out to the left hand side of the roof.
3. when it carried out an inspection, along with its consultant, it found that there was no water leaking and that although there was visible staining the area was dry. It had agreed to include the roof in its planned replacement programme for the financial year 2019 to 2020.
4. it recognised that there had been a failure in its delay to address the issues with the roof or to provide an action plan.
5. the section 20 consultation commenced in 2021 had been cancelled, apparently due to a lack of funds. It further said that this had been started to set up the access required to replace the roof in the 2019 to 2020 planned replacement programme. It then said that the process had been stopped not due to a lack of funds but based on the feasibility study carried out in December 2020. It had been put back to 2027.
6. it had not been able to access the loft space to carry out a detailed inspection. It had noted the reasons in its report. It further noted that the resident had items stored in the loft space which would need to be removed as she did not have the permission of the landlord as the freeholder to use this space.
7. the water ingress appeared to have been addressed by previous repairs and that the resident had confirmed at the time there were no live leaks.
8. that it understood that the resident was distressed that her concerns around the pandemic were being interpreted as her refusing access. It said that its teams had worked together to try to find solutions to alleviate her concerns. It then said “whilst this was of great concern to the potential state of the roof, and any further problem occurring, as well as the number of items stored in the loft area … I do believe that due consideration was given to your concerns, suggestions were made as to how the issue could be resolved and the matter was sensitively handled”.
9. the repair to the loft hatch had been completed in December 2021.
10. its surveyor had carried out an assessment of the roof in 2021 and requested urgent repairs to the chimney breast in December 2021.
The final part of this letter is missing, having not been captured within the landlord’s complaint case notes. Through a review of related and later correspondence with the resident it is recorded that an offer of compensation was made by the landlord as an outcome to the complaint.
The resident acknowledged the stage 1 response on 11 May 2022 and its decision to award her compensation. She noted that there were some discrepancies in terms of dates within the landlord’s response and she expressed her dissatisfaction with some aspects of the letter.
She made a formal request to escalate to her complaint to stage 2 on 8 June 2022. She said that she wanted to speak with a senior manager via a video call. She asked the landlord to confirm the process and the next steps. The resident said she was unhappy at what she felt was a disproportionate emphasis being placed on her refusal to give access to the loft space while COVID-19 restrictions remained in place. She also said that there were several discrepancies in the timeline which distorted what had happened. She explained that she was over 70 and had been shielding through the pandemic. Furthermore, she had been unable to be vaccinated due to other health conditions. The lockdown had impacted her mental health and she believed that the landlord should have made reasonable adjustments. She said that there were still outstanding issues with the crack on the landing wall. The resident wanted the surveyor to confirm that there were no ongoing leaks, but this had not been forthcoming. She also wanted a clear timeline with transparency around the feasibility report.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 July 2022 to say that her complaint was still awaiting triage and allocation to a reviewing manager. It said it would be arranging for payment of the compensation awarded in the stage 1. With no follow up from her landlord the resident contacted the Service.
On 20 July 2022 the landlord confirmed it would be investigating her stage 2 complaint. It further said that it would be replacing the roof to the property in the financial year 2023 to 2024 and that it would be carrying out the necessary consultation with residents.
On 28 July 2022 the resident provided a follow up to her initial request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She gave a detailed breakdown of the issues she had with the outcome of the stage 1, together with a detailed timeline.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 October 2022. In this it set out a timeline and responded to the resident’s concerns. It said:
1. In 2017, following reports by the resident, a surveyor attended her flat to carry out an inspection of a leak, along with a crack in the party wall with a neighbouring property. It said that due to a change in staff and contractor the necessary repairs were not carried out.
2. On 31 October 2018, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint about the outstanding repairs.
3. In November 2018 following repairs to the roof, it was referred to its planned team for replacement. This was because the roof had been deemed too fragile for continued patch repairs.
4. In December 2018, it determined that the ceilings in the resident’s flat would need to be replaced due to the extent of the water damage.
5. The section 20 consultation process began in June 2019, a visit for a feasibility study was carried out in August 2019 and the plans for the replacement roof were issued in November 2019.
6. In March 2020 the first national lockdown for the COVID-19 pandemic occurred and all but emergency works were put on hold. The resident was extremely clinically vulnerable and was unable to be vaccinated so needed to shield from others who may have been exposed to the virus.
7. On 21 May 2020 the resident reported that the hatch to the loft was open. Contractors attended on 1 June 2020 but as the resident had not been made aware of their attendance, they were not given access.
8. In October 2020 a letter was sent to the resident advising that the roof replacement works had been put on hold due to the pandemic and would now be carried out during the 2021 to 2022 financial year.
9. In December 2020 the feasibility report was issued, based on the visit carried out in August 2019. The resident had questioned the content of this report. Particularly that it was said that the surveyor was unable to access the loft space and that the leaks appeared to be dry. The resident had said that the surveyor did access the loft and that they had not used a meter to assess the damp, although the resident believed that the leaks remained active at that time.
10. In April 2021 the resident spoke with her housing manager and advised that due to her health she needed to continue to shield from COVID-19. The resident advised that it was during this conversation that she was first told that she should not use the loft space for storage. The housing manager had said that he had offered to arrange storage for the resident’s items, but she had no recollection of this conversation. It is noted that subsequent correspondence implied that the resident had refused access.
11. In December 2021 the landlord erected scaffold to facilitate clearance of the guttering. This was used to take photographs of the roof and in follow up the surveyor instructed further roof repairs to the chimney breast and roof hatch.
12. In April 2022 the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property to inspect the crack in the party wall. It noted that this appointment had not been arranged with the resident.
13. Following escalation of the complaint to stage 2 the resident discussed the ongoing issues with the complaint manager. She explained that the leaks now appeared dry. She was trying to progress the sale of her flat to enable her to move closer to her support network. Her estate agent had asked her for a short statement from the landlord to confirm that the visible water damage was because of historic leaks.
14. On 14 September 2022 the surveyor visited and found the leaks to still be active in 5 locations. A recommendation was made that the landlord should consider buying back the resident’s property given the likely disruptive nature of the roof replacement works and that she has been seeking a move since first reporting the leaks in 2017. At the time of writing the letter the landlord advised that it was still awaiting a decision on this from its executive team.
15. The landlord offered an apology for the length of time that the roof had been leaking. It also apologised for the content of its stage 1 reply which implied that the delays had been due to the resident’s refusal to give access to the loft when this had not been requested before the pandemic. It recognised the impact of the pandemic and the delays in preventing her move over a 5 year period.
16. At stage 1 it had offered compensation of £1,100 to address the cost of redecoration of water damaged areas, in recognition of the delay in informing the resident that the section 20 consultation was no longer in progress and for its poor communication.
17. It offered an additional £400 as acknowledgement that she had been unable to progress a move for 5 years. This had resulted in avoidable isolation from her partner and support network.
18. It said that her complaint raised in 2018 should have been progressed, and that the complaint should not have been registered as a new complaint in March 2022. This had contributed to a delay. It offered £200 for poor complaint handling and £100 for its service failure in not notifying the resident of appointments made for contractors to attend. In total it offered compensation of £700.
19. It concluded its complaint process but said that it would follow up with its executive team for a decision as to whether it would agree to buy back her share in the property or progress the roof replacement.
20. It offered a heartfelt apology for the delays and impact this had.
Based on a quotation from its roofing contractor provided on 11 October 2022, roof repair works were carried out between 7 and 11 November 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2022. She remained frustrated about issues with the roof and the damage to the wall. She was still awaiting a statement from the landlord confirming that the roof works were complete to pass on to her estate agent. She was also seeking an update on the crack to the wall. She said that the landlord’s contractors were due to visit on 9 January 2023. Through internal discussions a surveyor agreed to carry out a further inspection in early January 2023 to confirm that the leaks were drying out and to then provide the statement requested by the resident. It is noted that this visit was due to be carried out on or around 17 January 2023, but there is no record as to the outcome of this visit.
The resident contacted the Service on 8 February 2023, having expressed continued dissatisfaction with the landlord and set out the resolution she was seeking. She explained that following the conclusion of her complaint repairs to the roof had been completed and the surveyor had provided her with a report as to the current state of the roof. This she had wanted to pass on to her estate agent to assist with the marketing of the property. She advised that the landlord had declined to buy back her share of the flat, opting to carry out the roof works. She said that there was still an issue with a crack in the wall which she said was the result of damp coming in from the outside. This was captured in the surveyor’s report. She said that she had been told that the landlord did not wish to spend more money on the property to address this issue. She had been told that this would be done as part of roof replacement works but as these have previously been promised and delayed, she does not have faith this will happen. She said that she wanted to be able to move on and the delays with the repairs were preventing this.
The resident made further contact with the Service on 19 May 2023. Through this she said:
1. that she wanted to give a prospective buyer of her flat a definitive answer as to when the roof would be replaced and consequently the crack in the wall would be repaired.
2. she was concerned about the length of time the issues with the roof had been ongoing.
3. she was unhappy with her landlord’s focus around the period of the pandemic in its stage 1 reply.
4. that no damp readings were taken in 2019, despite a claim that they had been.
5. the latest roof repairs seemed to have been good but that she had been told that these were only temporary. The roof was now to be replaced in the financial year 2023 to 2024. This was likely to leave the crack unrepaired until this time.
6. there had been poor communication with the landlord around its decision not to buy back her flat.
7. she wanted the Service to look at how the landlord had handled the case as she believed it to be in breach of the lease agreement.
Through recent contact with the Service the resident has advised that she had another significant leak into her property in October 2023. This has left her flat damp and affected by black mould.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the roof and the crack in the party-wall

The resident has explained that there has been a long history of roof leaks affecting her flat and this is supported by the repair records provided by the landlord. The focus here is on the period from 2017, as this was the basis of the resident’s complaint and that which was considered by the landlord.
The landlord has provided the Service with a copy of repair records relating to the property. These cover a period from 2000 to 2022. There is however a gap in the records between 2015 and 2020 when no repairs or inspections of the property are recorded. The crack to the party wall within the resident’s flat was not captured within these records until December 2022.
The landlord produced a report in May 2021 which included a series of repairs raised and carried out in September 2016. Other records show an intention to undertake works to remove buddleia from the roof in 2017 and the landlord’s letter to the resident in 2018 refers to repairs having been carried out to the right hand side of the roof. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord noted that a surveyor’s visit had been carried out in 2017 to inspect leaks and a crack to the party wall. None of these were included within the landlord’s repair records.
The landlord told the resident in 2017 that it would not undertake repairs to the decoration within her flat caused by previous leaks and that this would be a matter for her insurer. There is however no evidence that the landlord provided information to the resident on making a claim against its buildings insurance or offered her support with this. It then said in 2018 that it would not undertake temporary repairs to the left hand side of the roof as it was unable to access this safely without reaching a party wall agreement with her neighbour. It is not clear if there were still ongoing leaks into the resident’s flat at this time. It also did not address the crack to the party wall. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failure to carry out repairs following its inspection in 2017.
It is unclear, from the evidence provided, if the resident reported further water leaks from the roof following her discussion with the landlord on 4 May 2017, and prior to her letter of 23 October 2018. She indicated within her stage 1 complaint that the repairs carried out in November 2017 were “ineffective” but it is unclear if this was reported to the landlord at that time. Repairs to the roof are noted, within the landlord’s stage 2 reply, to have been carried out in November 2018. The roof was then referred for inclusion within its planned replacement programme for the following financial year. This was appropriate given the surveyor’s assessment that further patch repairs could cause further damage to other areas of the roof.
It appears from the evidence provided that day to day repairs to the roof were initially halted following its inclusion within its replacement programme. As this was delayed further individual repairs were then carried out. This does however appear to be in contradiction of its own surveyor’s assessment in November 2018.
The landlord’s stage 2 letter also says that it was noted in December 2018 that the ceilings within the property would need to be replaced due to water damage. This is not captured within the landlord’s repair records and it is unclear what if any action was taken to deal with this. The internal works to the resident’s property may have been included within the wider works to replace the roof. This is not however clear from the evidence provided. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to make a claim against its buildings insurance policy for the damage caused, but there is no evidence that it did so.
The repair records do capture the report from the resident in May 2020 that the loft hatch on the roof was open, but do not provide detail as to the outcome of the repair raised to its contractor. It is known that the resident was unwilling to allow anyone into her flat at this time due to her health concerns around the pandemic.
The lack of information and detail within its repair records presents an unclear picture as to the extent of repairs carried out to the roof over an extended period of time. There is also a clear failure to record the resident’s reports of the crack to the party wall and the inspections carried out by the landlord’s own surveyor. In particular this has led to an oversight in the landlord undertaking any action to address the issue of the crack to the party wall over an extended period of time.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to have ensured that it kept a record of the reports it had received, what was found on subsequent inspections, whether further inspections were required, what remedial work was identified, when it was completed and whether any follow up action was required. Recording such information would ensure that the landlord has an accurate audit trail of the actions it has taken. The repair records provided by the landlord are lacking in this detail. That such records have not been maintained is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. The lack of detail within its records has meant that it has been difficult for the Service to gain a clear picture of the sequence with which issues arose with the roof. As a result, it is unclear if the landlord has acted in accordance with its obligations under the lease in response to each report it received and undertaken repairs within a timely manner.
It is accepted that roof repairs can at times be complex, often requiring a process of elimination to find the main cause of a leak. It is also noted that access to a roof can be difficult. However, it was not appropriate for the landlord to decline to undertake any works to one side of the roof without an agreed future action plan.
The gutter clearance works raised in April 2021 facilitated access to the roof and the identification of works required to both the chimney breast and the roof hatch. These works were completed in December 2021, ahead of further leaks being reported by the resident in January 2022. The landlord’s surveyor identified ongoing leaks in September 2022 and works were carried out in November 2022. There is however little clarity as to the location on the roof of these repairs, and whether these effectively resolved all the ongoing leaks within the resident’s flat.
Further to this, the resident was told that the landlord would address the crack in the wall as part of the roof replacement works. As these have never occurred this remains outstanding with no action having been taken to address this despite a number of inspections. It is a failure by the landlord not to take action to address this repair.
Taking into account the evidence that is available, the landlord’s actions in dealing with the recurring leaks into the resident’s flat and the reported crack in the party wall, were not appropriate. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has acted in accordance with the provisions contained within the lease or those set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term that the landlord must ensure that a property that it lets out is fit for human habitation. Further section 11 says that the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior if the dwelling house.
The landlord offered the resident compensation in its stage 1 response. This was in part calculated based on a previous offer made to the resident to cover the cost of redecoration to her bedroom following a leak. It is noted within the landlord’s records that this had been made by its surveyor in 2018. This was an offer of £989.10, which the landlord rounded up to £1,000. It is noted that there was a record of damage to other areas of the flat, such as the lounge and a reference to wider damage to her ceilings throughout. It would have been appropriate for the landlord have considered additional compensation to assist with the cost of redecoration to these areas. A further offer of £100 was included at stage 2 for its contractors’ failure to notify the resident of appointments made, leading to failed access.
An order for additional compensation based on the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies has been made.

The landlord’s handling of planned works to replace the roof

Based on its surveyor’s recommendation the resident’s property was included within the landlord’s roof replacement programme for the financial year 2019 to 2020. This followed its decision that it could not undertake any further repairs to the left hand side of the roof. This was initially progressed with a section 20 being issued and subsequently an independent surveyor being appointed to carry out a condition survey in August 2019. Plans for the proposed new roof were provided in November 2019, and the resident has advised that these were sent to her in January 2020.
These works were not however commenced. It is understandable that works of this nature would have been placed on hold because of the pandemic and the restrictions imposed on landlords.
Once again there is a lack of clarity in the landlord’s records. The Service has not been provided with a copy of the feasibility report completed by the landlord’s consultant surveyor following the visit in August 2019. The report produced in May 2021 says that the consultant provided a feasibility report in December 2020 after a visit to the property. In its stage 2 reply the landlord has said that the feasibility report resulted from the visit in 2019. If this is the case, this cannot be considered a contemporaneous assessment of the condition of the roof. It is also noted that the survey in August 2019 was carried out in conjunction with the proposals to replace the roof.
There is commentary within this report about the resident’s refusal to allow access to the loft space within her flat and of the items that she had stored there. The resident has commented that had she been asked to provide access to this space in August 2019 she would have been happy to arrange this. That she had been approached to give access to this space during a period of national restrictions and when she herself was shielding is not adequately reflected in the report. It appears that a disproportionate emphasis has been placed on this. The purpose of this report is unclear, but it supported a decision to withdraw the resident’s roof from the replacement programme. Indeed, this was pushed back to 2027 based on a statement from the consultant surveyor that there were 5 to 7 years left in the roof. This statement was given in June 2021, almost 2 years after the initial inspection.
It is acknowledged that landlords must operate in a way that ensures its decisions are based on the best use of its financial resources. It should also do so by considering all available information. The landlord has based its decision on the recommendations of its consultant, without apparent consultation with its own surveyor, who has engaged with the resident and viewed the internal damage to her flat over an extended period of time. Indeed, a request was made for the roof to be put back into the programme following inspections carried out in response to the resident’s complaint. This was then captured in the programme for the financial year 2023 to 2024.
Having commenced section 20 consultation with the resident the landlord did not tell her that this had been withdrawn. This was a failure recognised in its stage 2 reply. Internal communications also showed the landlord noting that it should have done more to let the resident know that it would not be proceeding with the roof replacement.
The initial recommendation to include the roof into the replacement programme was made following visits to the resident’s flat in 2017 and correspondence with her in 2018. She was advised at this time that further repairs to the roof could cause additional problems. Subsequently additional repairs have been carried out to address ongoing water ingress from the roof, contrary to the advice given in 2018.
In its 2018 letter the landlord also noted difficulties with access to the roof and in its communication with a neighbour to reach an agreement around scaffolding. Including the roof into its major works programme moved these negotiations over to the landlord’s asset management team. There is no evidence as to the extent of these negotiations or if these have subsequently been progressed. These negotiations would also seem to be required to address the issue with the crack to the party wall visible within the resident’s flat. There is evidence of this issue being passed between two teams of the landlord without clear resolution for the resident. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue.
The landlord offered compensation of £50 at stage 1 in recognition of poor communication with the resident around the withdrawal of the section 20. The landlord offered an additional £400 at stage 2, acknowledging the impact that the ongoing leaks had on the resident’s wish to sell her property and move. In considering the landlord’s failure to effectively communicate with the resident about changes to its plans for the roof replacement and the detrimental impact that this then had on the resident, the landlord’s offer of compensation was disproportionate. Having considered the landlord compensation policy and the Service’s guidance on remedies a further order for compensation has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

There were significant delays at both stages in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Her initial complaint on 22 March 2022 was formally responded to on 9 May 2022. It is noted that the landlord communicated with the resident twice to notify her that its response would be delayed. While its policy allows for an initial extension of 10 days it does not indicate that a second may occur. In its reply the landlord apologised for the delay which had been caused by the complex nature of the complaint and the need to liaise with different teams within the wider landlord organisation. It would be expected that the landlord’s complaint handling team would be supported by other areas of the organisation to ensure that it is facilitated with the information required to enable it to provide the best response to a resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s poor record keeping has meant that it is unable to share with the Service the completed response to the resident. The aspect of the letter that was visible to the Service appears confusing at times and there is an over emphasis on a lack of access to the roof space during COVID-19.
At stage 2 there was a significant failure in its handling as it did not progress the resident’s complaint when it was raised on 8 June 2022. Following contact with the Service, the landlord told the resident that her case was waiting to be triaged. She was then told that it was being investigated on 20 July 2022. The resident a more detailed report to the landlord on 28 July 2022. In the investigation of her complaint the landlord met with the resident via a video call on 31 August 2022. It provided its final written response to her on 10 October 2022, 4 months after she first sought to escalate her complaint.
In its consideration of her complaint the landlord said that it would request that its executive team consider buying back the resident’s share of the flat. It recognised that the ongoing leaks from the roof and uncertainty about its replacement had left her unable to sell her property and relocate closer to her support network. At the time of providing its written outcome to her complaint a decision on this point had not been reached. It said that it would progress the decision of its executive team once reached, either to buy back the flat or progressing with the roof replacement. No evidence has been provided that either of these outcomes were met.
Part 6.5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it has acted appropriately.
The Ombudsman cannot make an order that the landlord should undertake the purchase of a property or indeed that it should commit significant funds in undertaking major works. It does however consider it appropriate, in line with the Code, that the landlord should revisit the outcomes proposed as part of its complaints process and has made an order on this basis.
Compensation was offered by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling both at stage 1 and stage 2. A total of £250 was offered for its complaint handling.
Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and the circumstances of the complaint, an order has been made for a more appropriate level of compensation to be paid by the landlord which recognises both the delays and its failure to complete the works required to the property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the planned works to replace the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof was poor, and it has failed to demonstrate that it met its obligations under the lease agreement. Day to day repairs to the roof appear to have been halted once the roof was referred for replacement. When this did not happen in an appropriate timeframe further individual repairs were carried out.
The cancellation of major works to the roof was not communicated correctly to the resident. The decision to remove the roof from the landlord’s replacement programme was also based on a report that was seemingly out of date.
There is a lack of clarity around the landlord’s actions due to its poor record keeping and, in its failure, to communicate with resident. There was a significant delay in it concluding its complaints procedure and then no follow up on the outcome promised.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A member of the landlord’s executive team should provide the resident with a written apology.
2. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £1,400 in compensation, calculated as follows:
  1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by repeated leaks from the roof and in the landlord’s failure to respond effectively.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor handling of communication with her.
3. The landlord should undertake a review of the proposal made at stage 2 of its complaints process, that it considers buying back the resident’s 25% share of the flat.
4. Further an inspection of the resident’s home and the current condition of the roof should be carried out. This should inform a decision to undertake further roof repairs or for the roof’s inclusion into a renewal programme. This should include works to repair the crack to the party wall. The landlord should additionally undertake repair works within the resident’s home to address the damage caused by repeated leaks. An action plan and timescales should be agreed with the resident and shared with the Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should undertake a review of its record keeping, considering the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, to consider its record keeping practices.