Southwark Council (202101685)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101685

Southwark Council

15 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord has advised that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however, the resident has advised that she has a medical condition which is made worse by the presence of damp and mould.
  2. During January 2021, the resident called the landlord to report that there was a leak coming from her roof when it rained. She raised a complaint following this as she claimed that she had been told that the works would be completed within seven days due to her health conditions. She added that no one had attended the property and she had been informed that due to Covid-19, the landlord was unsure as to when the scaffolding required would be erected. She was dissatisfied with the delays and the impact on her health. She said that the issue had been ongoing since 2019. Contractors had previously painted over the area affected by the leak internally twice. She was also dissatisfied that the scaffolding contractors had put the work aside due to Covid-19 despite there being no need to enter her property to complete the work.
  3. In response, the landlord confirmed that roofers had attended to investigate her concerns on 27 January 2021 and found that scaffolding would be required. It confirmed that the scaffolding was due to be erected on 19 April 2021, one week after national lockdown restrictions had lifted, but this had not gone ahead due to the position of a local market meaning there were shortages of scaffolding. The scaffolding was rearranged for 26 April 2021 and erected successfully. The landlord explained that the leak was not considered an emergency as it was containable and only occurred when it rained. During the lockdown restrictions in place as a result of Covid-19 it was only able to attend emergency repairs. It explained that the scaffolders had their own policies and procedures regarding Covid-19 and the landlord was not able to force them to attend. It said it had no records to suggest that this issue had been ongoing since 2019 or that the resident had previously reported a leak from the roof. As such, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as there was no evidence of any consistent failure to rectify the issue. It confirmed that it would continue to ensure that the repairs were carried out. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the works were due to take place on 17 May 2021 but this was not completed due to rain. The work to repair the roof was reported as completed on 27 May 2021. A post inspection was due to take place on 17 June 2021; however, the contractors could not gain access to the property on this date and no further inspection date was agreed. 
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she wanted the landlord to complete a post inspection of the roof to ensure that there were no further leaks. She also wanted the landlord to resolve the damp issues in her bedroom and around the property. In addition, she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused as well as for the impact of the leak on her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the roof leak and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  2. In her communication with this Service, the resident also advised that she wanted the landlord to address and resolve the damp issues in her property. The resident raised a disrepair claim with the landlord in January 2019 which included the resident’s reports of damp and mould throughout the property. Making a disrepair claim is a legal process which is separate from the complaints process. Based on the evidence provided by the landlord, it appears that this disrepair claim is ongoing; these issues will therefore, not be considered in this investigation although they may be referenced to provide context. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate concerns which in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings;” This is because the courts are a higher authority to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman cannot interfere with court proceedings or overturn decisions made by the courts. If there is any challenge as to whether the disrepair claim settlement has not been followed correctly (including the quality of any works or the way those works were completed) then this would need to be taken back to the process which resulted in those works; i.e. the legal disrepair claim

 The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.

  1. The landlord’s repairs booklet states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to a leaking roof. It lists several categories for repairs; Emergency repairs, including those that pose a serious risk to health and safety or the structure of the property such as uncontainable leaks, should be attended to within 24 hours. Urgent repairs, including those that would not be considered an emergency but may pose a significant risk, should be attended to within three working days. Non-urgent or routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. This would include roofing faults which allow rain penetration. In some cases, repairs can take a longer timeframe to complete as they require additional planning and may be considered as planned major works. The landlord would be expected to keep the resident regularly updated on the progress of the works and provide and expected timescale for the works.
  2. The landlord’s repairs handbook confirms that where it fails to attend an appointment, the resident would be entitled to claim up to £50 compensation unless there was a reasonable excuse for the missed appointment. As a result of Covid-19, the landlord operated an emergency repair only service from 6 January 2021 onwards when the lockdown restrictions were imposed. Its website confirms that it began completing pre-existing repairs of all types on 12 April 2021, when lockdown restrictions were lifted.
  3. In this case, the resident has advised that the leak from the roof was initially reported in 2019 and again in October 2020. Whilst it is clear that the resident had an active disrepair claim open with the landlord during this period, there is no evidence to suggest that the roof leak had been included as part of the disrepair claim. The resident has not provided any further evidence to suggest that the roof leak was reported to the landlord prior to January 2021. As such, this report will focus on the events from January 2021 onwards, based on the available evidence.
  4. It is not disputed that there was a delay between January 2021 and May 2021 when the roof repair was carried out. In this case, there were several factors that contributed to the overall delay which were outside of the landlord’s control. It is noted that the landlord began to complete non-emergency repairs on 12 April 2021 following the easing of lockdown restrictions due to Covid-19. As such, the delay between 14 January 2021, when the resident reported the leak, and 12 April 2021 was outside of the landlord’s control and would not amount to a service failure by the landlord. The resident felt that the work could have been completed during this period as the scaffolders would not need to enter her property. The landlord satisfactorily explained that the scaffolders followed their own policies and procedures and it was not able to force them to work during this period. There were limited further steps the landlord could have taken to prevent this delay.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging for the scaffolding to be erected on 19 April 2021, approximately one week after it began to complete non-emergency repairs. It is noted that this did not go ahead as the scaffolders had reported that local market conditions resulting in a lack of availability of scaffolding had prevented this. Whilst the resident disputed that the market would affect the scaffolding being placed, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractors who determined that this could not be done. The landlord would not have been in a position to compel its contractors to complete the work sooner on this basis. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was made aware of the reasons the appointment did not go ahead until the landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 28 April 2021, despite her emails to the landlord in the meantime. This indicates poor communication by the landlord in that it did not explain the reason for the failed appointment in a timely manner and was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident.
  6. Once the scaffolding was erected on 26 April 2021, the landlord acted within a reasonable timescale to inspect the roof to determine the repair issue on 5 May 2021 and complete the works on 27 May 2021, within approximately 20 working days. It is noted that the repair works were due to take place on 17 May 2021, however the work could not go ahead due to rain. This delay was reasonable as contractors would not be expected to work on a resident’s roof in adverse weather conditions due to the health and safety implications. This delay could not be foreseen and would not amount to a service failure by the landlord.  
  7. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the delay as she said she had been informed that the repair would be completed within seven working days due to her medical conditions. Whilst we do not dispute the resident’s concerns, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the resident was informed of this. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation as to why the roof leak would not be considered an emergency; the leak was containable and only occurred when it rained. This explanation is in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy which state that roof repairs of this nature would be considered non-urgent. As the landlord was only completing emergency repairs between January 2021 and April 2021, it was reasonable that the repair was not carried out during this period. However, it is of concern that no additional vulnerabilities were listed by the landlord in its communication to this Service. As such, it is recommended that the landlord reviews the resident’s circumstances, as disclosed by the resident during its complaints procedure, and updates its records accordingly.
  8. The landlord has advised this Service that it was unable to gain access to the property on 17 June 2021 to carry out a post inspection of the roof repair as agreed. It advised that it attempted to arrange another date with the resident but this as not agreed. Given the length of time that has passed, it is unclear as to whether a post inspection is still needed or whether the resident has reported any further instances of leaks from her roof. In view of this, the landlord should contact the resident to determine whether there are further issues with leaks from the roof or whether the roof repair was successful. It should carry out a post inspection if required.
  9. In view of the communication failures identified, the landlord should offer the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its poor communication. This amount of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests that we may award compensation of £50 to £250 in cases where we have found service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor communication regarding the roof repair.

 Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to determine whether there are further issues with leaks from the roof or whether the roof repair was successful. It should carry out a post inspection if required.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the resident’s circumstances, as disclosed by the resident during its complaints procedure, and updates its records accordingly.