Stroud District Council (202336805)

Background

1. The resident reported leaks from the roof of an outbuilding attached to her property. She used the outbuilding to keep kitchen appliances, such as a freezer, fridge and tumble dryer. The landlord inspected the outbuilding and said it would need to be demolished. The landlord advised us that it does not hold any health or disability information on its tenancy management system for the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks affecting an outbuilding and her concerns about its plans to demolish the outbuilding without replacing it.
3. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks affecting an outbuilding and her concerns about its plans to demolish the outbuilding without replacing it.
5. There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to resolve the leaks to the outbuilding over a long period. It also failed to provide regular updates to the resident.
7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will “maintain all aspects of the structure of the property”. It defines ‘structures’ as “any structures associated with the property at the tenancy start date”.
9. We do not consider it fair and reasonable for us to make a binding decision on whether the landlord would be required under the tenancy agreement to build a like-for-like structure to replace the outbuilding. It would be a matter for the courts to give a definitive or binding ruling on the interpretation of the tenancy agreement in relation to this matter. We have, however, assessed the landlord’s actions and obligations in terms of maintaining the existing outbuilding.
10. The resident said in her stage 1 complaint dated 21 July 2023 that the problems with the outbuilding had been ongoing for about 6 years. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as us, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. We therefore consider it fair and reasonable for our investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from 2019 when it carried out a survey of the outbuilding.
11. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that the resident had reported a leak from the roof of the outbuilding in September 2019. Its repair records show that it inspected the outbuilding in September 2019 but did not take any action as the building was due to be demolished. The landlord then raised a further repair order on 27 June 2022 as the resident had reported that rainwater was entering the outbuilding due to holes in the roof.
12. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its surveyors that the outbuilding should be demolished. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not taken any action from 2019 to 2022 to resolve the reported leaks, either by carrying out interim repairs or by following through with its intended action to demolish the outbuilding. The lack of action meant that the resident continued to experience water leaks in the outbuilding when it rained.
13. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for maintaining any structure associated with the property. This would include the outbuilding, which was joined to the main property. The landlord was aware that the resident had appliances in the outbuilding and was therefore using it. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to act meant that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the leaks.
14. In her stage 1 complaint dated 21 July 2023, the resident said she had not received any updates regarding the outbuilding during the previous 10 months. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord provided updates to the resident after raising the order in June 2022. This was unreasonable as the resident had reported that water was still entering the outbuilding and therefore it was incumbent on the landlord to update the resident of its plans for addressing the reported leaks. The lack of communication added to the resident’s distress.
15. The landlord used its stage 1 and 2 replies to confirm that it intended to demolish the outbuilding and replace it by laying a concrete base and supplying a shed. It said it would also provide a new boundary fence. As previously stated, we have not investigated whether the landlord would be obliged under the tenancy agreement to replace the outbuilding with a like-for-like structure. However, it was unreasonable that by the time of its stage 2 reply on 9 November 2023 the landlord had not taken action to resolve the reported leaks into the outbuilding. Furthermore, it had not provided the resident with a firm timetable for carrying out its preferred option of demolishing the outbuilding.
16. The landlord said in its stage 2 reply that the outbuilding was not currently dangerous but if it was not removed, it may become dangerous in the future due to subsidence. As the landlord had identified that the outbuilding may become dangerous in the future, it was unreasonable that 3 years after inspecting it in 2019, the landlord had still not taken any action in relation to the outbuilding.
17. Based on the landlord’s inaction in addressing the reported leaks to the outbuilding and its failure to provide regular updates to the resident, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £600 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the leaks to the outbuilding. This sum is within the range of awards recommended in our Remedies Guidance for cases where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. The sum takes into account that although the landlord acknowledged its failings, it did not take appropriate steps to put things right. For example, it did not use its complaints process to offer compensation or provide a definite timetable with dates for resolving the issues with the outbuilding.
18. We have not investigated events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply but we understand from the resident that the issues with the outbuilding are still outstanding. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to:
    1. Provide an action plan with specific timescales for resolving the issues with the outbuilding. The landlord should obtain appropriate advice to ensure that its proposals, including providing a shed to replace the outbuilding, are in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
    2. Either offer the resident suitable compensation for the reported damage to her appliances or provide her with details of its insurers so she can make a claim.
19. We have also recommended that the landlord considers offering further compensation to the resident to cover the period from the date of its stage 2 response to the date the issues are resolved.

20. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord may extend these timescales where necessary. In which case, the landlord will explain the reason for the extension and maintain regular contact.
21. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 21 July 2023, which the landlord appropriately acknowledged on 25 July 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023, which was 13 working days after acknowledging the complaint. However, the landlord had written to the resident on 3 August 2023 extending the deadline for its response and therefore it responded to the stage 1 complaint within an appropriate timescale.
22. Following further correspondence with the landlord, the resident wrote to the landlord on 1 October 2023 to confirm that she wanted it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 2 October 2023. It then sent its stage 2 response on 9 November 2023, which was 28 working days after acknowledging the complaint. Although the landlord took longer to respond than its published 20 working-day timescale, it had written to the resident on 30 October 2023 extending the deadline for responding. Therefore, given that it had written to the resident extending the deadline, it responded to the stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timescale.
23. Overall, we have found that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord did not demonstrate an effective use of its systems to monitor the outstanding work to the outbuilding. As a result, it did not follow up the recommendation to demolish the outbuilding in a timely way. It is important for landlords to use their systems to track and monitor any responsive or planned maintenance work.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication was poor. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord was proactive in providing updates to the resident. As a result, the resident went long periods without receiving any updates. For example, in her stage 1 complaint she said she had not received any updates for 10 months.