Southwark Council (202004554)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004554

Southwark Council

22 March 2021

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 resident’s reports of leaks from the water tanks and the damage caused to the building façade.
2. The complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder who owns a property in a block of 14 flats, which is owned and managed by the landlord. The resident purchased the property in 2007.
The resident states that the block has experienced a recurring leak from the water tanks situated in the roof since 2014. The water tanks are communal in that each water tank serves more than one flat and the tanks are in the roof space of the associated top floor flat. For example, water tank one serves flats A and B and is accessed via the roof space in flat B. Some of the properties within the block have previously been converted to “mains” supply. The affected water tanks are not located in the resident’s flat.
The roof of the block was replaced in 2017 and an asbestos survey was completed prior to the work being completed. However, the landlord did not have a record of this survey in its system.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs guide specifies three categories of repairs: emergency, urgent and non-urgent. Non-urgent repairs include “minor leaks when not causing serious damage or a safety risk.” Non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days, however where the landlord has planned major works that include the repairs reported, “there may be a reasonable delay” before it starts work “as long as there will be no serious risk to … health and safety.”
The landlord operates a two-phase complaints process: the complaint phase and the review phase. Complaints will be acknowledged within three working days and the resident/leaseholder informed of who is investigating their complaint. Complaints will be responded to within 15 working days at complaint phase and 25 working days at review phase.
The landlord’s compensation policy includes guidance on offering compensation for time and trouble. In considering an offer of compensation for time and trouble, the landlord will “consider the extent of the inconvenience a complainant has experienced to get a resolution to their problem.” In assessing whether compensation for time and trouble is payable, relevant factors may include the length of time taken to deal with the problem and the complaint itself, time and effort required from the resident and the degree of inadequacy of the landlord’s response to letters, phone calls or visits.
The lease agreement requires the landlord:
1. “To keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and of the building (including drains gutters and external pipes) and to make good any defect affecting the structure…
2. “As often as may be reasonably necessary to paint in a good workmanlike manner with two coats of good quality paint all outside parts of the building usually painted…
3. “To provide the services … to or for the flat and to ensure so far as practicable that they are maintained at a reasonable level and to keep in repair any installation connected with the provision of those services.”
The landlord has produced a guide for leaseholders and freeholders. The guide outlines the rights and responsibilities of the resident as a homeowner. This includes the right to expect the landlord “to repair and maintain the exterior and common areas of [the] building. This also includes cleaning and ground maintenance…”
The guide also outlines the landlord’s key responsibilities including “maintenance of the structure of the block and the estate…” and “maintenance of all equipment associated with services supplied to the block and estate…”
The guide provides information about leaks from above. It states, “even a small leak over time can cause a lot of damage and can become a costly repair if not repaired quickly.” The landlord is responsible for leaks from “gutters, district heating, communal water tanks and leaks from the roof or the flat above.”
The landlord is also responsible for major works to keep the building and communal areas in good repair and includes external and communal decorating.

Summary of events

On 15 August 2019, the landlord was informed that there was a leak from the roof. It is unclear who made this initial report.
On 27 August 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to report a leak which was damaging the façade of the building. The resident expressed his belief that as this was a reoccurring issue, the landlord should take the matter seriously and resolve the matter “for good”.
The landlord responded the same day and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It explained that its roofing contractor had attended on 25 August 2019 and identified a leak from the cold-water tank in the roof space of flat A. The landlord noted this explained why there was a leak “despite little or no rainfall.” It confirmed it had instructed a plumber to attend, and it hoped to have completed the repair by the end of the week. The landlord advised it would keep the resident updated.
The resident requested an update on 29 August 2019 and reported a similar leak from the water tank in flat B. The resident requested further updates on 16 September 2019, 30 September 2019, and 12 October 2019.
The repairs log shows that jobs regarding the leaks were raised on 2 September 2019 (flat A) and 10 October 2019 (flat B). Both jobs are marked in the records as complete.
The evidence suggests the landlord contacted the resident by telephone on 15 October 2019 and the resident followed up by email on 18 October 2019 to request the asbestos report and emphasizing the water leak needed urgent attention. An asbestos report was required due to concerns that asbestos was present in the roof space.
On 16 October 2019, the repairs and maintenance team advised building services there was no asbestos in the roof and requested an appointment was arranged to complete the repair to the roof tank in flat A as soon as possible. Due to difficulties contacting the resident of flat A to arrange access, the earliest an appointment could be arranged was for 28 October 2019.
The repairs log shows a new job was raised on 21 October 2019 and the contractor attended the same day. The log was updated stating “attended to leaking overflow but as it was raining heavily earlier in the day the engineer has advised the gutters may be blocked. Please check gutters.”
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 22 October 2019 advising an appointment had been arranged for a plumber to attend on 21 October 2019 (this appears to be an error and means 28 October) to remedy the leak to the water tank in flat A, and a separate appointment was booked for 30 October 2019 to repair the water tank in flat B.
On 30 October 2019, the landlord identified that the tanks were communal. Therefore, it needed to arrange for its contractor to “remedy the overflowing tank.” An email was sent to the team responsible for managing the contractor. The email advised “there has been a few jobs raised against the block to [the contractor] but they have been closed down assuming the leak is from the gutter…” The email also stated there was a leak from the tank in flat B, but due to issues accessing the tanks the recommendation was that the block was changed to mains supply. A later email clarifies that access to the tanks is completely restricted by a roof beam meaning the valve could not be reached. An email was sent to the contractor asking them to attend the property and advise “exactly what [you] find so we can get this added to the communal tank programme.”
The resident emailed the landlord to request an update on 4 November 2019 and 10 November 2019. He raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 November 2019. The complaint stated the communal water tanks were leaking causing water to flow down the front part of the building and the matter had been raised over two months ago.
The contractor responded on 8 November 2019 advising the block was not on the tank asset list. It confirmed it had visited the block and found the tanks were communal with access “totally restricted.” The contractor stated it had recommended the supply was converted to mains pressure.
On 11 November 2019, the landlord asked the contractor to add the tanks to the ‘programme’. The contractor responded that this would not be a problem if they could “physically get to” the tanks hence the recommendation to convert to mains. The landlord asked the contractor to conduct a survey and “provide a “quote to rectify.” The landlord chased the contractor on 20 November and 29 November 2019.
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 11 November 2019. It explained it had been working with its contractors to find a permanent solution and that its asbestos team had not had a record of the asbestos survey carried out previously. The landlord assured the resident it would let him know as soon as it “had some definitive information” about how it was moving forward.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 November 2019 and advised it aimed to respond by 6 December 2019.
The resident requested an update regarding what progress had been made on 19 November 2019 and 2 December 2019. The landlord responded on 2 December 2019 and apologised that the resident had not been provided with an update. It explained that as the tanks were communal, the matter was being dealt with by the engineering department and the engineering contractors.
The resident requested further updates from the landlord on 3, 5 and 11 December. The landlord provided updates to the resident on 3 and 11 December advising its contractors were awaiting an update from their own subcontractors. It advised it would provide a further update as soon as it could.
Due to difficulties experienced with its subcontractor, the contractor reattended on 6 December to attempt a temporary repair to the float valve to reduce the overflow running, and ideally stop it. However, the contractor had been unable to gain access to flat A. There is no reference in the email to flat B. The contractor reported the overflow was not running at the time of the visit and advised it was liaising with other subcontractors to try and get the matter resolved.
The landlord requested updates from its contractor on 3, 6, 11 and 16 December 2019. The contractor confirmed it had attended on 12 December and found the overflow running, however it had been unable to gain access to flat A to inspect the tank. It had sent a letter to flat A with an appointment for 20 December 2019.
On 16 December 2019, the landlord emailed the resident and advised the engineer would be reattending on 20 December 2019. It explained the contractors needed access to neighbouring properties to access the tanks and appointment letters had been sent to the relevant residents.
The contractor provided an update to the landlord on 20 December 2019 confirming it had attended flat A that morning. It had “tried overhauling the float” but due to the restricted access caused by the roof beams it recommended converting the property to mains “as this would ensure a more permanent repair.” It advised it was sourcing quotes and would submit them to the landlord for approval.
The landlord requested an update from the contractor on 2 January 2020. The contractor explained its subcontractor was closed for the Christmas break until 6 January 2020 and advised it would provide an update to the landlord by 12pm on 6 January 2020.
The contractor submitted its quote to the landlord on 6 January 2020 and it was approved the same day. There is no information about what works the quotation included. The landlord updated the resident by phone and advised it had asked its contractor to call the resident to discuss the works.
On 15 January 2020, the landlord advised the resident that the contractor would be attending on 22 January 2020 regarding the overflows from the communal tanks.
The timeline provided by the landlord shows that the contractor confirmed on 22 January 2020 that it had attended at flat A that morning and the mains conversion had been completed. The timeline shows the resident responded on 23 January 2020 asking for an explanation for the “5 month and 10-day delay” and stated further measures were needed for flat B to be inspected and transferred to mains and for the limescale damage to be rectified.
According to the timeline provided by the landlord, between 23 January 2020 and 5 February 2020 several internal emails were sent in response to email from the resident regarding the further works required and the explanation requested. The landlord confirmed it would attend to inspect the limescale damage and an update was sought from the contractor regarding flat B. In its email of 5 February, the contractor advised that it had not been able to gain access to the flat B on 22 January 2020. Its engineers had advised the overflow was behind the soffit, and it needed confirmation the resident(s) concerned had combi boilers before it could convert them to mains.
On 4 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating it had taken 5 months and 10-days to resolve a leak despite weekly email communications and follow-ups. He outlined remaining steps for the landlord to take, namely that flat B and the remaining top floor flats should be inspected and connected to the mains as per the contractor’s recommendation, and the limescale damage rectified.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 6 February 2020. It confirmed that following the report of the leak an order was raised to check the roof/guttering but on attendance the leak was traced to the communal tanks. It then arranged for a heating engineer to attend but needed a different contractor to assist. The landlord explained access issues had exacerbated the delay but that the works were completed on 22 January 2020. It stated it had contacted its contractor on 6 February 2020 to arrange an inspection to establish if the tanks needed to be disconnected and had asked the repairs team to inspect the damage to the front of the building. It apologised for the delay in resolving the leak and the inconvenience caused.
According to the landlord’s timeline document, the resident requested an update on the outstanding works on 19 February 2020 and the contractor provided an update to the landlord on 20 February 2020. The contractor explained it had gained access to flat B, but it did not have a combi boiler and so could not be converted to mains supply. It explained it would try and complete a repair to the float valve but were “hampered by very poor access.”
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 February 2020 explaining it had requested updates regarding the moss and the outstanding works and it would let the resident know once it had a response. Internal emails dated 25 February 2020 state the cleaning of the ‘moss’ from the wall is not in the landlord’s remit and suggests referring this matter to the contractor and that the works referred to by the resident were authorised in January. The contractor confirmed on 26 February 2020 that cleaning the moss was not in its remit.
According to the landlord’s timeline, the resident requested an update on 12 March 2020 and contacted the landlord by telephone on 18 March 2020 explaining there was still a leak from flat B. On 23 March 2020, the resident sent a further email to the resident with a video of the leak.
The landlord responded to the resident on 6 April 2020. It explained its contractors had attended several properties in the block and had changed valves to resolve the overflow, but there was still an overflow from one property. Its contractor needed access to the final property to complete the repair and an appointment had been arranged with the relevant resident that week. It apologised for the delay and the lack of communication and confirmed it would not be able to arrange for the external cleaning to remove the moss.
The resident responded the same day advising the leaks had been reoccurring since 23 September 2014 and the front of the building was damaged due to the length of time it took the landlord to repair the leaks when they occurred. The resident requested confirmation of which department was responsible for the external building when damaged was caused ‘by the negligence and overwhelming bureaucracy’ of the landlord and asked for an update once the outstanding leak had been resolved.
The landlord responded on 7 April 2020 advising it would speak with the ‘clean team’ once they resumed dealing with day-to-day issues but stated the area would dry out once the leak was resolved.
The timeline from the landlord shows the landlord requested an update from the contractor on 9 April 2020. The contractor responded on 14 April 2020 confirming it had attended the property to repair the valve, however due to the restricted access caused by the roof beams they were unable to complete the job. It explained the property did not have a combi boiler so could not be changed to mains supply, therefore its recommendation was that the properties served by this water tank had combi boilers installed and were then converted to mains.
According to the timeline the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 17 April 2020. The landlord asked for confirmation of the response from the contractor and for an action plan to be developed before escalating.
There are several emails between the landlord and the contractor on 24 April 2020 regarding the best way forward to resolve this issue. Discussions consist of whether the pressure to the block is suitable, if the boilers in situ meet the landlord’s current standards, if the boilers are on the replacement list and if not, who would cover the cost of the works, and whether it was more appropriate to remove whatever was blocking access instead of installing two new boilers. The discussions conclude with an arrangement for the contractor and the landlord to conduct a joint visit to flat B that afternoon. The resident was updated about the visit and advised a further update would be provided following the inspection. The joint inspection identified that there was already a new boiler in flat B and all that was needed was to “convert the down service to mains pressure…”
On 30 April 2020, the contractor provided a quote to the landlord for the conversion of the two properties served by the water tank in flat B to mains supply. The landlord requested the quote was broken down into a schedule of rates, the contractor advised it was waiting for a full breakdown of costs from its subcontractor and that this may take until 6 May 2020. The contractor advised as soon as the quote was approved the works would be scheduled for 6 May 2020. The contractor provided a further breakdown of costs on 5 May 2020 and the job was authorised the same day.
The timeline supplied by the landlord shows that the resident emailed the landlord on 6 May 2020 with a video showing the overflow running. The landlord requested confirmation from the contractor that the job was going ahead that day, but the contractor advised it had not received authorisation, so the job had not been scheduled. It advised it would reschedule the works as a matter of urgency.
On 11 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord again as the overflow was continuing. The landlord emailed the contractor again requesting clarification as to whether the works had been completed. The contractor confirmed it had arranged to attend the property on 13 May 2020.
The contractor confirmed on 13 May 2020 that the works had been completed and the resident had been updated accordingly. On 14 May 2020, the landlord sought clarification regarding responsibility for the works required to clean the façade of the building, and confirmed the resident wished to escalate his complaint.
The resident requested an update on 8, 18 and 29 June 2020. The landlord agreed to escalate the complaint on 30 June 2020 and emailed the resident to confirm this had been done. It also apologised for not being able to rectify the water damage to the front of the building.
On 4 August 2020, the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord acknowledged it had not responded to the complaint in the allocated time, but it had consistently pushed for updates and a full resolution. It explained that whilst it appreciated the resident’s efforts in pursuing the completion of the works, it could not award compensation as the matter affected multiple properties. The landlord explained it had responded to the initial report on 15 August 2019 within good time and took steps to remedy the issue, though it was hampered by having to use multiple contractors, having an asbestos inspection, delays in gaining access to the property and the restricted access to the tanks. It apologised that the repair had taken so long and thanked the resident for his efforts in resolving the matter.
In relation to the water staining the landlord advised it needed to erect scaffolding due to the height of the repair, and due to the costs associated with this the work would be completed during cyclical works. In conclusion the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint due to the delay in repairing the leak and the staining however reiterated that it was unable to award compensation as it had been a communal issue.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the report of the leak

The repairs policy requires non-urgent repairs to be responded to within 20 working days. The landlord responded to the initial report of a leak within 10 days and had already attended the property before the resident made his own report about the leak. The landlord advised the resident it hoped to have the repair completed by the end of the week and it would keep the resident informed.
It is clear from the evidence that whilst several jobs were raised, they were incorrectly marked as complete after the attending operative assumed the leaks were from the gutter. This is despite the original attending operative confirming the leak was from the tank on 25 August 2019.
There were further delays caused because the landlord did not have a copy of the asbestos survey completed when the roof was replaced in 2017. As the contractor needed to access the roof space, and the landlord could not confirm whether there was asbestos, the landlord had to conduct a further asbestos survey before any works could commence.
The contractor confirmed to the landlord on 8 November 2019 that access to the tanks was completely restricted by roof beams and recommended the properties were converted to mains. The landlord asked the contractor to conduct a survey and provide a quote for the works on 11 November 2019. Between 11 November and 16 December, it is clear the landlord chased its contractor for an update several times and the contractor did explain that it was waiting for an update from its subcontractor.
The contractor reiterated its advice to convert the properties to mains supply following its visit on 20 December 2019 and advised it would submit a quote for the work. The quote was not submitted until 6 January 2020, however given the Christmas break this is not unreasonable. The works were authorised the same day.
Given the contractor was due to attend both properties on 22 January 2020, it is reasonable to assume they were both supposed to be converted to mains. Therefore, it is unclear why, despite having previously conducted a survey before submitting a quote for the works, the contractor stated on 5 February it required confirmation the second property had a combi boiler before converting the property to mains. It confirmed on 20 February that the second property did not have a combi boiler.
It does not appear that the landlord followed up with the contractor again until 9 April 2020, and the contractor explained again on 14 April 2020 that it had attended flat B but had been unable to complete a repair due to the restricted access caused by the roof beams and that its recommendation was that the property had a combi boiler installed and was converted to mains supply.
Despite the recommendation that the property was fitted with a combi boiler, the inspection on 24 April 2020 revealed the property did not need a combi boiler fitting to enable the property to be converted to mains. A further quote was submitted for the property to be converted to mains, which was approved by the landlord and the works were completed on 14 May 2020.
The landlord acknowledged there had been delays in dealing with the leak and advised the resident it appreciated the efforts he had made to resolve the matter but stated it could not award compensation due to it being a communal issue. There is no reference to this in the complaint procedure, but even if it is the case, the landlord’s compensation policy provides for compensation to be provided in respect of the time and trouble the resident expended in trying to resolve the issue and the landlord did not award any compensation to the resident under this category.
The landlord has inspected the external damage and determined that it is not structural. Therefore, it has explained that the water damage will be rectified during cyclical works because of the cost of erecting the scaffolding needed to complete the works. The landlord has a responsibility to use its funds appropriately and therefore it is reasonable for the landlord to arrange to complete these works during its cyclical works programme.

Landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy requires a response at stage one within 15 working days. It took the landlord 62 working days to issue its stage one response. In its response it incorrectly informed the resident that the works had been completed.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated in April, but the landlord initially refused to, stating an action plan should be put in place to resolve the matter first. The landlord did not tell the resident it would not escalate the complaint or explain why. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated again on 14 May 2020, and again the landlord refused to until 30 June 2020. Again, the landlord did not advise the resident it would not escalate the complaint or offer an explanation. This delay by the landlord was not acceptable; the resident had received his stage one response in February and had the right to ask for it be escalated at that point. Whilst the landlord may have wanted to put an action plan in place, it should have explained this to the resident.
The landlord did respond at stage two within 25 working days, and whilst it apologised for the delays in dealing with the repair, it did not fully acknowledge its failings in dealing with the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 there is service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the damage to the façade of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 54 there is service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

There were significant delays in repairing the leak caused by jobs being incorrectly recorded as complete when they remained outstanding, not having the asbestos survey on file, having to chase responses from the contractor and incorrectly advising that a new combi boiler was required. Whilst the landlord was attempting to complete the repairs, the length of time taken was unreasonable as the issues were avoidable with better records management.
The landlord issued its stage one response significantly outside of the timeframe stated in its policy. It failed to keep the resident updated during the complaint process resulting in the resident having to consistently chase the landlord. It also refused to escalate the resident’s complaint for over two months.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble spent to resolve the leak by 19 April 2021.
The landlord to pay the resident £200 for the significant delays in responding to the complaint and its failure to escalate the complaint on at least two occasions when requested by 19 April 2021.

Recommendations

The landlord to inform the resident in writing by 3 May 2021 when they intend to programme the cyclical works to the building, including the remedial works to the façade.
The landlord to ensure it has robust processes in place for managing delays caused by its contractors.
The landlord to review its record keeping policies and processes to ensure it retains and can access information relevant to the management of its properties e.g. asbestos surveys, boiler details.