Stockport Homes Limited (202213370)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213370

Stockport Homes Limited

23 March 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house.
  2. In January 2021, the landlord completed a stock condition survey which concluded that the roof of the resident’s property should be included in its programmed maintenance works for 2023/2024. In January 2022, the resident asked for the landlord to inspect the roof, as she believed that there were holes in the roof due to daylight entering through the loft space. An operative inspected the roof in February 2022 and identified works that needed to be completed, such as re-bedding ridge tiles and renewing damaged felt and guttering.
  3. In March 2022, the resident contacted her local MP about the condition of her roof. In April 2022, the landlord raised the roofing works for the resident’s property as part of a smaller planned works project, where it would complete roofing works on three properties. On 10 May 2022, the works were raised with a roofing contractor. The contractor attended on 18 May 2022 to inspect the property, and had installed scaffolding by 31 May 2022. The works began at the resident’s property on 20 June 2022 and were completed on 21 June 2022. The resident continued to chase a date for the removal of the scaffolding, which was ultimately taken down on 2 July 2022.
  4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 19 July 2022. She was dissatisfied with the length of time taken for the repairs to be completed, and for the scaffolding to be removed. She also reported that some repairs were still outstanding, which the contractor stated were repairs to her porch which were not included in the specification of works. The resident later added that the delay in works had resulted in her having to postpone landscaping works she had planned, because the friend who was completing the work for her was no longer available and as a result would end up costing her more. She also added that contractors had damaged items including scissors, gnomes, planters, an aerial, a pond liner and a CCTV camera.
  5. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 22 September 2022. It stated that the contractors had attended to inspect any damaged items, but due to a lack of evidence of how the damage was caused, it had decided not to provide compensation. It stated that the repairs had been completed in a reasonable timeframe and that it had met its obligations. However, it upheld the complaint in view of the distress and inconvenience that the resident had experienced, which had been exacerbated by poor communication and delays. It offered the resident £250 in gardening vouchers, and said that, as a gesture of goodwill, it would apply turf and fill in holes in the resident’s garden. It also stated it would compensate the resident for the cost of new scissors, and would inspect the CCTV and TV aerial, and replace these items if needed.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 22 September 2022. She stated that there were still holes in the roof of the property, which had not been repaired properly. The resident is seeking for the repairs to be completed, and to receive compensation for the delay in being able to landscape her garden.
  7. Following further inspections in October 2022, the landlord stated that its contractors had sent the resident a new pair of scissors. It added that the TV aerial had been inspected and no faults were found. It acknowledged that the resident’s CCTV had been damaged, and stated it would provide compensation after an assessment was completed for this. As the resident had stated she would prefer financial compensation for the garden works rather than the landlord completing the works, it increased its compensation offer to £610 (£250 for broken gnomes, planters, CCTV and the pond liner and £360 for garden works, poor communication and delays).

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The repair priorities information available on the landlord’s website states that following a stock condition survey, works would be identified as programmed repairs. It also states that planned repairs are completed within six months, as part of a small planned programme in order for the landlord to manage its resources more effectively.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that the landlord will ensure that resident’s receive text notifications of appointment times, including a reminder when operatives are en-route.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the resident’s property.

  1. The landlord’s website differentiates between what constitutes programmed repairs and planned repairs. Programmed repairs are identified during stock condition surveys, where something may be near the end of its life expectancy; it states that it would then programme repairs to take place when it meets the end of its life expectancy. In contrast, planned repairs are larger projects, such as pointing to brickwork, which are completed as part of a small programme to help the landlord manage its resources more effectively.
  2. As such, when it became evident that the landlord’s programmed maintenance works in 2023/2024 may be delayed until 2025, the landlord recognised that the works required to repair the roof could not wait until then. Although the inspection in February 2022 identified the same works as the previous inspection in 2021, the landlord’s decision to move the works forward was reasonable as it recognised the resident’s concerns about water leaks into the loft and it wanted to ensure the roof was watertight.
  3. Thus, the landlord now considered the works to be planned repairs, which, in accordance with the repair priorities information available on the landlord’s website, should be completed within six months. It is reasonable for landlords to schedule major works such as roof repairs in advance in order to manage their limited resources effectively, for the benefit of all their residents. The need to fit scaffolding as part of the repair, meant that a longer timeframe would be needed for this repair as opposed to more minor repairs which landlords can usually be expected to complete within a month.
  4. In this case, the decision was made to complete the roof repairs as part of a smaller planned programme of works involving three other properties which also required roof repairs. This was a reasonable approach as it balanced an urgency to complete the resident’s roof repairs with the necessity to manage costs. It also took into consideration the nature of the works, giving a realistic timeframe for completion.
  5. However, the landlord would be expected to provide clear next steps and expectations in regard to when the works were scheduled to take place and when the works would be completed. Whilst it is evident that the works were completed within the stipulated timeframe for planned works, having first been raised in January 2022 by the resident and completed by 21 June 2022, the landlord’s communication surrounding the roof repairs was unsatisfactory.
  6. On one occasion, the landlord had provided a local MP with an update on its approach to the works. However, from the evidence provided, it is not wholly clear whether the landlord was providing the resident with updates in order to appropriately manage her expectations before the work had begun. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord, and it impacted the resident as she was understandably distressed about the condition of the roofing and concerned about how long it would take to repair it.
  7. In addition, throughout the repairs process there were times when the resident reported to the landlord that contractors had attended without her being informed, such as on 7 June 2022. As per its repairs policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of any appointments, and it not doing so is further evidence of poor communication. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to communicating effectively with residents, and to ensure that its contractors are aware of its expectations.
  8. The scaffolding was removed nine working days following the completion of the works. From the evidence provided, the scaffolding was initially due to be removed on either 23 or 24 June 2022, but this was delayed until 30 June 2022. During this time, the landlord regularly requested updates from the contractor. On 30 June 2022, the contractor informed the landlord that the scaffolding would be removed on 1 July 2022. However, this was later rearranged for 2 July 2022 due to an operatives’ personal circumstances.  Where delays are likely to occur, a landlord would be expected to contact the resident, provide reasons for the delay and an expected date for a new appointment. Whilst the landlord did chase the contractor for updates, it is ultimately responsible for the actions or lack thereof from its staff and it was therefore appropriate for the landlord and contractor to acknowledge this delay and apologise to the resident. Although this was not a significant delay overall, it did impact the resident as she spent time and trouble chasing the matter.
  9. When the resident reported further concerns about the roof, the landlord inspected the works which had been completed previously on 12 October 2022. The contractor concluded that no further works were needed, and that there was no water leaks into the property. Although the resident has informed this Service that she believes that there are still issues with the roofing, the landlord has taken steps to assess the condition of the roof, and completed the repairs recommended by its qualified staff. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake and whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns about the roof, we have not seen evidence to confirm that there are still repair issues or that the repairs have not been successful in making the roof watertight. If the resident sees evidence of water leaking into the property through the roof, she can report this to the landlord and the landlord would be expected to respond, in line with its repairs policy.
  10. The resident reported that during the works, contractors had caused damage to items in her garden. Although the contractor had initially apologised and stated it would reimburse the resident for the items, it later stated it would no longer provide compensation due to a lack of evidence of the cause of the damage. IT was reasonable for the contractors to inspect the property to assess any damage, and it would not have been obliged to provide compensation without evidence. However, it was not appropriate for it to agree compensation and then change its decision. This set the resident’s expectations that she would receive redress, which later resulted in further distress and inconvenience due to the contractor changing its decision.
  11. The resident also informed the landlord that due to the length of time it had taken to complete the roofing works and remove the scaffolding, she had to postpone landscaping works which she had planned for her garden. She stated that as her friend was no longer able to complete the works for her, it had resulted in higher quotes for the work to be completed by another operative. The landlord acknowledged that the situation had impacted the resident, and recognised that she had experienced distress and inconvenience throughout the repairs process, which had been exacerbated by poor communication and delays.
  12. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  13. In this case, the landlord had ultimately put things right by completing the necessary repairs to the roof. It also attempted to put things right by offering to complete groundworks in the resident’s garden as part of its redress. However, as the resident said she would prefer financial compensation due to a change in circumstances, the landlord increased its offer of compensation from £250 to £610. This shows that the landlord was making reasonable efforts to accommodate the resident’s preferences in its offer of redress, which was appropriate under the circumstances.
  14. The landlord has also stated that if the CCTV assessment due on 5 January 2023 shows that any damage could have been caused by the roofing works, then it would follow any recommendations from the operative to repair or replace the product. It is therefore recommended that the landlord ensures the appointment was completed, and that it has updated the resident with its findings.
  15. Ultimately, the compensation awarded by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for cases where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but where there may be no permanent impact. In addition, the landlord showed some learning from the complaint as it stated that it had provided feedback to its staff, and has stopped working with the contractor involved, since the complaint.
  16. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the resident the £610 compensation if it has not already done so, as the Ombudsman’s decision is based on an understanding that this will be paid.
    2. Ensure that the appointment to assess the CCTV on 5 January 2023 took place, and that it has updated the resident with its findings, and any further action it would take.