Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202013361)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013361

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

16 September 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:
1. Handling of the residents’ reports of a leak at the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The residents are shared owners of the property; the lease started in late 2012. In 2012 the rental cost of the property was £14,877.50 a year. The lease allows for an increase in rent of 0.05% a year.
Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible to maintain and repair, among other things, the roof, foundations and structure of the building.
The leaseholders repairs guide says there are three target times for the completion of repairs:
1. Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours.
2. Standard repairs should be completed within 28 days.
3. Major routine repairs should be completed within three months or as part of a planned programme of works.
This guide says that major repairs include structural repairs to the building.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond to complainants within ten working days at stage one and within twenty working days at stage two.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that compensation should be considered in the following circumstances including:
1. There has been a service failure that warrants consideration of a compensation payment for example, published timescales for repairs has been exceeded and an extension has not been agreed with the customer.
2. The resident has suffered financial loss as a result of its actions.
3. The resident has spent an unreasonable amount of time and trouble pursuing it because of its service failure.
4. The customers quality of life has been affected due to severe distress and inconvenience because of its service failure.
The policy says that residents are encouraged to have home and contents insurance to cover their personal items, the landlord will not compensate for damage to personal items unless the damage has been caused by its actions.
The landlord has a tariff of discretionary compensation payments. This says the maximum for time and trouble is £350 where a high volume of contact is needed from the customer to resolve the issue; the maximum for poor complaint handling is £150.
This says that when the landlord’s failings have caused damage it may pay for the loss or damage to belongings up to the value of £300; losses greater than £300 will need to be considered by its insurance team.

Assessment and findings

In 2017 the residents made a claim to the National House Building Council (the NHBC) about water-staining and damage to both bedrooms of the flat. On 12 December 2017 the NHBC issued a report having inspected the property on 3 and 31 October 2017. The report concluded that the damage was consistent with condensation (not helped by a non-working extractor fan) and a split seal to the bottom of a doorway.
The NHBC did not accept the claim noting that “deterioration caused by neglect or failure to carry out normal or specific maintenance” which related to the swelling of the threshold due to the split seal below the door not being repaired and “dampness, condensation or shrinkage not caused by a defect’” were not covered by the policy.
The repairs log evidenced that on 19 August 2019 the residents reported water ingress coming through the bedroom window from the outside. The log noted this should be investigated and repaired and a target date of 16 September 2019 was given. On 23 August 2020 the log noted that the leak had been caused by a blocked outlet and missing panel and work had been undertaken to remedy those issues that day.
The repair log evidenced that on 24 September 2019 the residents again reported water ingress coming through the bedroom window. The log noted this should be investigated and repaired and a target date of 22 October was given. The log noted that roof panels needed to be lifted to check for leaks and blockages to outlet; this work was given to a contractor.
The repairs log noted on 9 October 2019 that the complex repairs team should investigate the flat roof above the property. It noted “garden roof with foam slabs 20m, water is not running to outlet”.
On 12 October 2019 the residents made a complaint to the landlord asking for urgent action to be taken on the roof. They said that the roof had been leaking for four years and the fabric of the building was deteriorating as a result. They said that the landlord had insisted the damp and mould in the flat was a result of condensation until August 2019, when a leaking roof was identified. They added that the leak was ongoing. The residents raised concerns about the safety of the property with regards to electrics given that water ingress had spread through the walls; the safety of a ceiling which they thought might collapse; and damage to the flat and their possessions, which included:
1. Swollen and cracked skirting boards.
2. Swollen windowsills in the bedrooms
3. A swollen windowsill had damaged the window/glazed door.
4. Plaster had disintegrated and fallen away in places.
5. Carpet had been waterlogged for six weeks.
They asked that, among other things, the landlord urgently investigate the leak to the roof. They also provided photos of the damaged walls and water damage behind an electric socket.
On 1 November 2019 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and gave the residents details of its insurer for them to make a claim for the damage incurred to the property. It added it would reimburse the £250 insurance excess as a gesture of goodwill.
On 4 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the residents at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. It said its processes and poor communication between its varying departments had restricted its ability to bring their complaint to the speedy resolution it had hoped. It said it had been chasing up its contractors but they had not responded. The landlord upheld the complaint based on the service they had received and said, given the lack of progress, it had escalated the complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure. It added it could only consider compensation once its contractors had completed the works.
The repairs log evidenced that on 13 January 2020 the residents reported that water was going into the property as it was not running through the outlets. It noted that all blockages should be cleared.
On 15 January 2020 the landlord told the residents that advised its drainage contractor would be in touch and make an appointment with them directly. This had a target date of 24 February 2020; no further details were logged.
On 10 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident’s confirming that it had been escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure and that it aimed to issue a response within 15 days.
On 12 February 2020 the residents told the landlord that they needed a commitment from the landlord to both a programme of works and timescale for the repair work. They added “we are in limbo and the situation is untenable”.
On 14 February 2020 the roofing contractor inspected the roof. The repairs log evidenced on 6 March 2020 that a report on the roof had been sent to the repairs team. It noted that the target date for completion was 17 April 2020.
On 2 September 2020 the landlord erroneously told the residents that there was no outstanding repair.
The repair log evidences that on 8 September 2020 the residents reported a continuing leak into their bathroom. It noted that this matter required the complex repairs team to investigate.
The repair log evidenced that on 19 October and 4 November 2020 the residents again reported a leak into their bathroom. It noted on 3 November 2020, meanwhile, that the project team were to investigate and remedy the leaks.
On 11 November 2020 the complaints team noted that repair was with the project team to investigate and remedy the leak. The repairs log on that day noted that scaffolding was to be erected.
The repair log evidenced that on 23 December 2020 the section of the roof affecting the resident’s property should be repaired as per the quote. The landlord provided several quotes in spreadsheet form which were undated. However, these quotes evidence that part of the roof required resealing and the asphalt renewed.
In an internal email dated 15 January 2021 the landlord noted that the residents had made a claim to the NHBC that had been rejected (paragraph 11) but “the same issue has persisted since then”. It asked if it could make a claim to the NHBC on the basis of “misdiagnosis”. The Ombudsman has not seen the response to that email.
In an internal email dated 3 February 2021 the repairs team noted that the residents had confirmed the flat no longer leaked when it rained and they had been provided with claim forms for the remedial works to internal surfaces of the bedrooms and hallway. The repairs team noted that the small roof was beyond repair and would require renewal. It explained that, when this design fault was raised with development at defects the contractor applied a bitumen coat which had since now perished; the issue was that the outlet was too high to be able to drain any water below it. They said that this was reported to development at the defects stage but little or nothing was ever done.
On 15 February 2021 the landlord responded at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. It said it did not uphold the complaint because it could not identify that it did not address the leak in a timely manner. It said it could not take responsibility for the leak occurring and it had resolved it quickly. It said it hoped their insurance company could help to restore their home as soon as possible.
On 17 February 2021 the residents responded to the landlord. They disputed that the complaint was at stage one, saying they were still awaiting a stage two response and that matters had not been resolved quickly because they had been asking for the landlord to repair the roof since August 2019. The residents also said they had been told that it would be the landlord’s insurer who would consider their claim; they added they were seeking compensation.
On 18 February 2021 the residents provided the landlord with a detailed chronology of events in connection with the leaking roof.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the residents acknowledging that the stage one response of 15 February 2021 should not have been issued, as the matter was at stage two.
On 25 February 2021 the residents told the landlord that they were getting quotes from builders to remedy the damage to the property as well as itemising their personal effects which had been damaged by the leak over 18 months to submit to its insurers. They said that they were also looking for compensation and a rent refund to compensate for the distress and disturbance over the last 18 months.
On 11 March 2021 the residents chased the landlord for the stage two complaint response.
On 26 March 2021 the landlord issued its final complaint response to the residents. It upheld the complaint; the main points were:
1. All works had been completed to the main roof and recent repairs to an adjacent roof accessed from their balcony had also been completed. It confirmed that the main roof repair had been completed and a post–inspection carried out by the end of January 2021 to a standard it would expect.
2. There had been a failure to repair the roof in a timely manner which had resulted in damage in the property which it named as:
  1. Waterlogged carpets.
  2. Skirting boards and windowsills swelling and cracking.
  3. Water entering the electrics.
  4. Plaster coming away from the walls.
  5. Black mould in both bedrooms and out into the hallway.
1. It understood the residents were submitting a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance and attached information about making a claim, if they had not done so already.
2. In order to recognise its poor service, the landlord offered compensation of £400 made up of:
  1. £300 for the residents’ time and trouble in pursuing the repair.
  2. £100 for poor complaint handling.
The landlord signposted the residents to the Ombudsman.
When the residents approached the Ombudsman, they said that they wanted further compensation on the grounds that the property had been dangerous to live in due to water-damaged electrics and that one of their bedrooms could not be used as a result of the leak. The residents said they had had to endure eighteen months of “degradation of living conditions” that affected their physical and mental health. They said that their electric radiators were water-damaged and rusted which meant they did not heat the flat properly and they could not hang curtains or blinds from the damp plasterboard which meant their sleep was affected. They said the situation had been stressful. They added that the smell of rot and damp had permeated the flat and their belongings during this period.
The residents told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s insurer had turned down part of their buildings and contents claim on the basis that they should have had their own contents insurance.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of a leak at the property

Under the lease, the landlord has responsibility to maintain and repair the structure of the building including the roof (paragraph 3). In its final complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged its failings in this case, namely, that here had been a failure to repair the roof in a timely manner which had resulted in damage in the property.
Having accepted responsibility for the delay in resolving the leak, this report has focussed on what steps the landlord took to remedy this failing. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord identified early on that an insurance claim would be appropriate and gave the residents details of how to make a claim (paragraph 18). At that time the landlord said it would reimburse the insurance excess as a goodwill gesture. That was an appropriate step to take to ensure that the residents were not financially disadvantaged by having to make an insurance claim. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair and put things right.
In the final complaint response, the landlord offered compensation of £300 for the time and trouble in pursuing the repair. This was at the top end of the amount included in its compensation policy (paragraph 9) and this Service considers that that sum reflects the impact on the residents by the time taken to pursue matters.
However, while this sum reflects adequately the time and trouble spent by the residents pursuing the repair, the landlord did not consider compensation for the impact on them caused by living in a property with a longstanding, unremedied leak. In its final complaint response, the landlord set out the damage that had been caused to the property (paragraph 38). It would have been reasonable at that stage for it to have considered whether the £300 offered adequately compensated the residents for the full impact on them of its failure to resolve the leak in a timely manner. This Service does not consider that this sum was appropriate; as the landlord had not considered the residents’ undisputed account that a bedroom was out of use.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not include room loss payments. However, the Ombudsman considers that such compensation, which is used widely by other housing associations, would be appropriate to reflect the impact of the restricted use of the property from August 2019 when the leak was first reported (paragraph 13) until February 2021 when it was resolved (paragraph 31).
This Service has calculated compensation of £2,062 as follows:
1. Approximate average rent per month for 2019-2021 (approx.) calculated given a 0.5% uplift as set out in the lease: £15,479 (that is £1,290 a month)
2. Compensation period of 16 months (allowing two months for the landlord to have put matters right given the complexity of the repair).
3. Full rent for 16 months at £1,289 a month = £20,624
4. 10% of £20,624 = £2,062.
This Service considers that that sum reflects the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to the residents by the loss of one bedroom, living in damp conditions for a prolonged period as well as the problems with electrics and mould that occurred in other rooms also.
This Service notes that the resident’s claim to the landlord’s buildings and contents insurer was turned down in part (paragraph 41). Given the landlord has accepted responsibility for the damage caused to the property by the leak, it would be appropriate for it to direct the residents to make a claim on its public liability insurance and note that a reference was made to this in its final complaint response (paragraph 38.). It does not appear that such a claim has been made and a recommendation has been made, below.

Complaints handling

In its final complaint response, the landlord recognised that there had been a complaint handling failures. This Service identified that the landlord had wrongly issued a second stage one response in February 2021 (paragraph 32); that its stage one response was delayed (paragraph 19); and that it took over one year to issue the stage two complaint response (paragraph 38).
The landlord should ensure that it does not allow complaints about repairs to stay open indefinitely whilst waiting for the repairs to be completed. This runs the risk of residents being blocked from escalating their complaints should repairs continued to be delayed. The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and it’s proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
The landlord offered £100 for its poor complaints handling. The Ombudsman considers that sum reflects the inconvenience caused to the residents. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of service failure. This includes cases where there has been poor complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents reports of a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the roof under the terms of the lease. There was a considerable delay by the landlord in resolving the repair which it acknowledged. While it offered compensation, the impact of that was not reflected in the compensation it offered the residents.
The landlord also acknowledged complaint handling failures. The compensation offered was proportionate to the failures identified.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pays the residents additional compensation of £2,062.
2. Pays the residents the compensation previously offered of £400 (if it has not done so already).
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Provides the residents with the appropriate information so that they can make a claim on its public liability insurance.
2. Reimburses the residents any insurance excesses as appropriate.