Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202015689)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015689

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

7 March 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord’s property. The property is a flat, located on the 8th floor of a building.

The landlord’s duties and obligations, policies and procedures

Clause 5(2)(a) of the lease agreement states that the landlord will “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building (including all drains, gutters, and external pipes) and make good any defect affecting that structure”.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy (the policy) states that repairs are categorised as either “emergency” or “routine”. Emergency repairs include gas escapes, exposed electrical cable and severe water leaks. Routine repairs are those which are required to remedy building or component failure that cannot wait for a programme of cyclical, planned or investment works.
The landlord’s Tenant and Leaseholder Compensation policy (the policy) provides that the purpose of the policy is to set out the circumstances in which it may make a monetary payment in recognition of loss or detriment suffered. The policy does not provide a tariff, but states that compensation payments can be made as a gesture of goodwill to recognise time and trouble caused by service delivery failure.

Summary of events

In March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report a roof leak. The resident raised concerns that the water ingress was causing damage to the tiles and paintwork within his property.
It is not clear what transpired following this. However, on 10 March 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to raise concerns about the landlord’s response to his reports of the leak. The resident informed this Service that water was coming through the ceiling during periods of wet weather, and that this had been ongoing for over 12 months. The resident advised that he had raised the matter with his landlord, but the problem had yet to be resolved.
Following our involvement, the landlord’s Head of Asset Management and Investment issued a stage one response to the resident’s complaint. Within this, he said:
1. It was awaiting specification details relating to the repair to determine the costs and place orders. It expected to receive this information by 6 April.
2. A second contractor would visit the site on 7 April to offer a second opinion on the best way to remedy the disrepair.
3. The situation remained a priority but had taken some time to investigate due to the complexities of the building and determining the root cause.
4. Once the roof repair was complete, further investigation would be needed to determine any other areas of ingress.
5. He had upheld the resident’s complaint, and would be informing the Service Improvement Team of the decision.
The resident subsequently contacted the Ombudsman on 14 April to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, and with events that had transpired since. The resident said that given the letter, he had expected to hear from the landlord after 6 April, but had not received any further communication. He had tried to speak with the landlord’s Head of Asset Management and Investment, but had been informed that he was on leave.
This Service informed the landlord that the resident remained unhappy with the response to his concerns, and the lack of progress in relation to the repair. The landlord agreed to escalate the complaint, and issued its stage two response on 10 May 2021. It apologised that the resident was dissatisfied with its stage one response and stated:
1. It had been in contact with specialist contractors to decide the best way to remedy the issue with the roof. Due to the complexities of the building and determining the root cause of the problem, this has taken some time to investigate.
2. It had advised the resident by email on 26 April 2021 that it had received a price from one contractor to complete the replacement of the roof and it also expected a price from another contractor. It was also conducting further checks with its Health and Safety teams and would contact the resident once it is aware of timescales.
3. It had assigned a project manager to oversee the repairs and it hoped to start the repairs in July.
4. It would advise all residents of its proposed start date and the duration of the works before they started.
5. In view of the delay in carrying out the requested repairs, it was upholding the resident’s complaint.
On 18 August, the resident subsequently informed the Ombudsman that he wished for us to consider his complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs. He said that while the roof repairs had since been completed, there was still an issue with drainage. On 25 August 2021, the resident contacted this Service again as he experienced a further ingress of water.

Events after the final response

At the end of September 2021, the landlord commissioned an inspection of the roof and drainage. This was undertaken by a specialist drain care and repair company. The inspection found that there were no issues with the stack pipes; however, the flashing was coming away from the roof and this may have been causing the issues that the resident had reported. It was recommended that the landlord should instruct a roofing contractor to further investigate the issues that had been identified.
Repairs were subsequently carried out to the roof. However, from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, it is not clear what these entailed or when they took place. However, the landlord contacted the resident on 15 October 2021, to ask if the roof repair had ‘cured’ the water ingress into his flat. It stated that it understood the resident would need to wait some time for the weather to change, so that he could be sure the repair had solved the problem and asked for him to notify the landlord if he required any decoration to the damaged area.
Internal correspondence at the landlord shows that the resident had confirmed that the leak had been solved for the time being, and that while the resident did not wish for any decoration to take place, he did wish to be compensated for the time that it had taken to complete the repair.
Evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the resident’s request for compensation was discussed internally; however, there is no evidence which shows that a decision was reached or that any offer was made.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the landlord’s repair logs relating to the property. These show that on 2 and 30 March 2020 the resident had reported that there was an ingress of water at the property, and that the pipework supplying the flat had a blockage. The repairs logs show that both these jobs were cancelled. The records do not contain any details about the cancellation.
A further repair in relation to the pipe blockage was raised later on 30 March 2020, and this was marked as complete. However, it is not clear from the records what the problem was considered to be, and what action – if any – was taken to remedy the situation. On 11 August 2020, a repair was raised in relation to the roof, and it was noted that the resident had reported that the paintwork and tiles within his property were being damaged by the water ingress. The job for 11 August was marked as complete on 25 August; however, it is not clear whether a repair was completed or attempted.
The records suggest that the landlord had attended to inspect the roof on 13 August 2020; however, it was unable to gain access and the job was cancelled as a result. The logs show that the resident reported the leak again on 19 August, and that water was coming through the roof. The logs show that the landlord’s electrician attended on 20 August to isolate the bathroom light and that it was subsequently “refixed” on 23 August.
The lack of detail within the landlord’s repairs logs makes it difficult to establish what transpired between the resident’s first report in March 2020 and October 2021, when the repair was completed. It would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it recorded sufficient details within its logs so that it had an audit trail of its response to the resident’s reports of repair. Such details would include, whether the job was attended, what was found on inspection, what repair was carried out – or whether further investigation was required – and whether any follow-on works were required. That the landlord did not record such information was a failing in the circumstances.
While the Ombudsman has not been able to establish what transpired between March 2020 and October 2021, it does not appear to be in dispute that the landlord delayed in completing the repair. The landlord’s comments that there were some complexities involved in locating the cause of the problem, and that it had to go through the process of obtaining quotes before it could complete the repair are acknowledged – and not disputed.
However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident of what it considered to be causing the ingress of water, and to provide a rough timescale for completing the repairs prior to the resident raising his formal complaint. Taking such an approach would have provided the resident with reassurance that the landlord was committed to resolving the issue; and would have also helped the resident to understand the process that would be involved in completing the repair. In turn, this would have managed the resident’s expectations in relation to timescales for completion. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing in its handling of the repair and in its communication with the resident.
In addition, while the landlord had advised of some of the difficulties it had encountered when trying to resolve the repair, it has not provided an explanation for why no action was taken in relation to the repair between March 2020 and April 2021. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this when it responded to the resident’s complaint.
As detailed above, the landlord has not disputed that its response to the resident’s reports about the leak was delayed. It appears that this was the basis on which the resident’s complaint was upheld. It is also acknowledged that the landlord had made an offer in relation to internal decoration to put right the damage that had been caused by the leak. While this was appropriate, given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider offering other remedies aimed at putting things right. The resident had specifically requested compensation, and the evidence does not show that the landlord reached a decision in response to the request, and that this was communicated to the resident. This was a further failing on behalf of the landlord, and it should now take steps to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the roof of the resident’s building.
2. Complaint handling and record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in carrying out repairs to the roof of the building, and as a result, the resident was inconvenience by the water ingress for a prolonged period. The landlord’s record keeping failures have made it difficult to establish why the repair was not completed sooner.
When responding to the complaint, the landlord advised that the complexity of the repair, and the process of obtaining quotes, had added to the time taken to complete the repair. While this is not disputed, the landlord failed to communicate this to the resident, which led to him raising his concerns as a formal complaint with the Ombudsman. In addition, although the landlord upheld the resident’s formal complaint, it failed to offer a remedy aimed at putting things right.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £450 compensation comprised of:
  1. £300 for the inconvenience caused by its delay in completing the repair, and its communication surrounding the repair.
  2. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures detailed above, and for failing to offer the resident an appropriate remedy during the formal complaints procedure.
3. Remind staff of the importance of accurate record keeping, especially in relation to repairs.
4. Remind staff of its approach to compensation payments and goodwill gestures as detailed in its compensation and complaints policies and procedures.