Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202017036)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017036

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

14 July 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.     This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

a. report of a leak into her property from the roof of the building.

b. report of internal damage to the property following the roof leak.

c. concern regarding the grounds maintenance service.

d. report of repairs required to the front and rear communal doors.

e. report of repairs to the carpets, internal walls of the building.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident has a leasehold property since 10 December 1999.

3.     The property is described as a flat situated on the second floor of the building.

4.     The lease obliges the leaseholder to “repair and keep in good and tenantable repair and condition the interior of the premises including…. the wall ceiling… all pipes, drains which are in the premises”. The lease prescribes what it considered constitutes the premises.

5.     The lease obliges the landlord to keep the building insured and provide the leaseholder with a copy of the insurance policy. The lease explains that the landlord shall not be liable for damage suffered by the leaseholder regarding “damage to the premises due to the bursting or overflowing of any pipe, tank or drain…. such liability may be covered by insurance effected by the landlord”.

Policies

6.     The landlord’s repairs guide for leaseholders sets out that leaseholders are responsible for internal decoration to the property, that it is responsible for arranging repairs to the structure and exterior of the property – including the roof and that it will arrange repairs it is responsible for through its contractor, inspect the repair as necessary and monitor the repair to completion and follow up on any outstanding issues.

In addition, it will carry out planned maintenance including the painting of walls in shared stairways on a regular basis and that emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 calendar days major routine repairs within 3 months or as part of our planned programme of works.

7.     The landlord estate inspection policy covers the environment and services paid through the service charge including communal services. It uses a grading system to identify hazards to health and safety and security. It advises that its managers provide training, joint visits, verification checks, followed up by spot checks and compliance audits.

8.     The landlord’s complaint procedure sets out that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days in its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage. It sets out the criteria it will consider when it receives a request for a complaint to be escalated and that insurance claims are excluded from the complaints process.

9.     The landlord’s tariff of discretionary compensation payments sets out the grading system it uses to assess awards of compensation.

10. The landlord’s website provides information on the building’s insurance available to leaseholds. The page includes the summary of cover and an e-claim form.

Summary of events

11. The resident has been reporting to the landlord that she was experiencing leaks into her property, the earliest recorded report provided to this service being 13 August 2019.

12. There were no further reports regarding water penetration from the roof until 27 December 2019 and the landlord’s records noted on 22 January 2020 that scaffolding was required to access the roof.

13. The next report from the resident regarding water penetration from the roof was on 2 July 2020. In response, the landlord informed the resident that it required further information about the roof leak and that if there was damage to her home, she could make an insurance claim and that an excess was payable.

14.  The landlord’s records note that on 22 July 2020, repairs were carried out to the roof – loose tiles were refixed, and the gutters cleared.

15. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 October 2020 to advise there remained a hole in the roof, her ceiling had been damaged as a result and the roof still required attention.

16. The resident commissioned an independent building engineer’s report on 19 October 2020 regarding the roof leak to the property and sent it to the landlord on 14 February 2021.  It observed that that there were missing roof tiles which could admit water during periods of heavy rainfall. It recommended replacement of the torn sarking felt to the rear roof slope, replacement of the missing lead head flashing at the junction of the link block and the missing tile to the rear of the block and that the gutters should be cleaned.

She requested that the landlord carry out the recommendations from the report to resolve the roof leak. The report recommended that a claim be made to the block building insurers regarding damage to the property.

17. The resident chased the landlord on 4 March 2021 to ascertain who was taking responsibility for the internal damage to the walls and ceiling in the property.

18. The resident informed the landlord that she had contacted the building insurers who had advised on 11 February 2021 that the “internal cracking had been caused by general shrinkage/ settlement which was not covered under the terms of the policy as this had been happening gradually over a sustained period of years” and signposted her back to the landlord regarding the repairs required to the roof.

19. The resident complained about the ongoing roof leak and the consequent damage to the ceilings inside the property on 10 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.

20. On 22 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord regarding her concerns about the ground maintenance at the building. She advised that the grass had not been maintained, requested a breakdown of the work carried out under the service charge and a refund for the work that the landlord had not delivered.

21. The landlord’s internal records show on 25 March 2021 that it was advised that new work was required to refix loose roof tiles and that the ceiling in the property needed to be stain blocked and redecorated.

22. The resident complained on 27 March 2021 about her service charges. She advised that she had complained about these matters before and that she had not received a response. In response the landlord contacted the resident on 29 March 2021 to request photos and more information about the issue she was complaining about. In addition, it informed the resident, that the complaint about the roof leak was being addressed.

23. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 March 2021 to advise that the complaint was about:

a.     lack of ground maintenance regarding the plants and grass in the front garden, dead bushes and the gravel to the front garden

b.     the rear communal door to the block required repair and the front entrance communal door would not close

c.      the carpet to the block required replacement as it had not been changed in the 21 years that she had lived there

d.     the poor condition of the communal walls and doors that were stained.

24. The landlord provided its stage one response on 30 March 2021 regarding the roof repair and damage to the property. It apologised for the delay in its response. Its key findings were:

a.     it had completed the repairs in an acceptable time frame – loose tiles had been refixed and repairs to the valley undertaken on 19 March 2021

b.     it acknowledged that it had not kept the resident informed regarding the appointments to carry out the repairs or provided updates on the action it was taking

c.      it apologised for the poor communication and distress and inconvenience experienced

d.     it offered a compensation award of £370. This was broken down as: £250 for time and trouble in making the complaint; £100 for service failure and £20 for poor complaints handling. It agreed that the contractor would arrange a convenient appointment to resolve the internal decoration to the ceiling in her property.

25. The landlord’s ground maintenance contractor informed the landlord on 7 April 2021 that whilst the site was maintained to the contract specification, there were areas that could benefit from improvement such as the lawn that had bald patches and areas without grass that required replanting.

26. The landlord’s records show that:

a.     it approved the repair to ease and adjust the lock to the communal front door on 22 April 2021

b.     it approved a variation to its ground maintenance contractor on 9 April 2021 for the installation of four raised beds – two in the front entrance and two beds at the rear entrance, the supply of plants, topsoil and bark mulch

c.      the resident reported on 18 April 2021 that the rear entrance door could not lock, enabling people to access the property who did not live there

d.     the repairs to the front valley and to the tiles on the rear pitch roof were completed on 19 April 2021 and a water test had been carried out to confirm this.

27. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about grounds maintenance on 21 April 2021. It apologised for the delay in its response and its key findings were:

a.     it had arranged for its contractor to tidy up the gardens and carry out replanting to the front and rear lawns

b.     it provided a copy of its service charge letter for the financial year 2021-2022

c.      it was inspecting the items complained about – front and rear communal doors, communal walls and carpet on 22 April 2021

d.     it offered a compensation award of £50: £30 for time and trouble and £20 for its complaint handling failures.

28. The landlord’s internal records show that on 22 April 201 it discussed the leaseholder’s responsibility for the internal repairs to the ceiling or the possibility of making an insurance claim.

29. The landlord inspected the property on 22 April 2021 and raised two works order to ease/adjust the closing mechanism to the communal front door and to repair the communal rear door. The repairs were to be concluded by 29 April 2021 and post inspected on 5 May 2021. It decided that repair was not required to the communal carpet or the paintwork as the damage was cosmetic.

30. The resident chased the repair to the communal front and rear doors on 28 April 2021.

31. The resident escalated her complaint regarding the roof works on 30 April 2021 asking when the internal repairs would be addressed and outlined her dissatisfied with the compensation award.

32. The landlord’s records show that the property was inspected on 4 May 2021 and the work to repair the communal rear door had not been completed.

33. The resident escalated her complaint about the grounds maintenance and communal works to the landlord on 6 May 2021 advising that she has unhappy with the compensation award of £50 and that she considered an award of £850 to be more appropriate.

34. The landlord’s internal records show that on 10 May 2021 it asked its internal maintenance team to inspect the communal rear doors to ensure that they could open and close. The maintenance team advised that they could not undertake work on the doors as they were fire doors and any work undertaken may compromise the safety of the doors.

35. The landlord contacted the contractor for an update on the repair to the rear communal door on 12 May 2021, who advised that they had not received the works order for the rear communal door. The landlord resent the works order on the following day, 13 May 2021 and advised that it had an urgent priority.

36. The landlord’s records of 11 May 2021 acknowledged that the incorrect information had been provided to the resident regarding the responsibility for the damage to the ceiling. It recognised that it had advised the resident that the damage to the ceiling would be dealt with as an insurance claim as the member of staff was unaware that the resident was a leaseholder and under the lease, the repair was her responsibility.

37. The landlord responded to the complaint at the final stage of the complaint’s procedure on 13 May 2021 regarding the damage to the roof. The key findings were:

a.     the roof repairs had been post–inspected on 19 April 2021 and work had been completed to a satisfactory standard.

b.     It had visited the resident on the same day (19 April 2021) and informed the resident that it would resolve the damage to the ceiling. It had subsequently found that it had provided the incorrect advice to her and apologised for this

c.      It reviewed the compensation award and increased the amount to £420. This was broken down as £300 for a time and trouble payment; £100 for service failure and £20 for its complaint handling failure.

38. The landlord chased the works order for the repair to the rear communal door on 17 May 2021 and it is noted that the material was being delivered from abroad and it was anticipated that the works would start on 28 May 2021.

39. The landlord provided its final complaint response regarding the grounds maintenance and repairs to the front and rear communal doors on 17 May 2021. It advised that it had recently reviewed its approach to compensation, provided a link to its compensation procedure and confirmed that it considered that the compensation award under at the first stage of the complaint procedure was appropriate.

40. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service on 18 May 2021. She provided video evidence of the damage to the roof and advised that the roof leak has been ongoing for seven years. She advised that this has caused her mental and health issues.

She also advised that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding the grounds maintenance, the repairs to the communal front and rear doors and the condition of the communal carpet and walls.

Assessment and findings

your report of a leak into the property from the roof of the building

41. The landlord has a responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the roof. The landlord recorded that the resident had reported leaks into her property from as early as August 2019. It responded by conducting visits to the property in accordance with its repairing obligation to assess the repair that was required to resolve the leak. The first visit the resident was not available and it advised the resident that it required access to assess the problem with the roof.

42.  The landlord inspected the roof in December 2019 and assessed in January 2020 that scaffold was required to make the necessary repairs. However, it took until July 2020 for it to carry out the work to refix the loose tiles and clear the gutters.  The resident made a further report of water penetration in October 2020 into her property. The landlord replaced the missing roof tiles in March 2021. On both occasions, the repairs exceeded the timescales set out in its repairs policy that states that routine repairs will be concluded within 28 days.

43. The landlord was advised by the roofing company that the second report of water penetration into the resident’s property was a different issue to the leak previously reported by the resident. Therefore, though the resident experienced water penetration to her property on more than one occasion, from the information supplied by the roofing company, the two issues were not linked.

44. In its complaint response, the landlord accepted that it had not completed the repairs to the roof in an acceptable time frame. It apologised for this and for not keeping the resident informed about the appointment times and providing updates about the action that it was taking to resolve the water penetration into the property. In recognition of this, it offered the resident an award of compensation of £250 which represents reasonable redress for the service failures that it had identified regarding the internal damage to the resident’s property following the roof leak.

your report of the internal damage to the property following the roof leak

45. It is not disputed that the resident experienced water penetration into her property from the roof and that the landlord in accordance with its repairing obligations had a responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.

46. The lease explains that the leaseholder is responsible for decoration to the property, that the landlord is not liable for any damage experienced by the leaseholder and that such liability may be covered by its building insurance policy. In accordance with this, when the resident informed the landlord of the internal damage to her property following the roof leak it appropriately signposted her to make a claim on the building insurance, initially in July 2020 and again in October 2020 and it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to make a claim under the building insurance provisions.

47. The resident advised that she made a claim under the landlord’s building insurance and that the claim was refused. Nevertheless, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to consider the outcome of an insurance claim.

48. The landlord in its initial response to the complaint recognised that it had provided contradictory information to the resident regarding the responsibility for rectifying the damage. As under the terms of the lease, she was responsible for the internal decoration to the property, therefore it would not undertake decoration works to the ceiling in her flat.

49. The landlord in its final complaint response in May 2021, reoffered a compensation award of £100 for the incorrect advice it had provided her regarding its responsibility for repairing the damage to the property and increased its time and trouble payment to £300.

50. The landlord’s Dispute Resolution Procedures are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord has acted appropriately in its acknowledgement that it did not provide the correct advice to the resident and has apologised for this. In addition, it made an award of compensation in accordance with its compensation procedure which it recognised as a medium failure as the resident experienced time and trouble in pursuing this with the landlord. The offer of compensation recognised the service failure in communication and represents proportionate and reasonable redress for this.

concerns regarding the grounds maintenance service

51. Looking at the available evidence, the resident reported various concerns regarding the ground maintenance at the property – she complained that the front and rear lawns had not been maintained. In response, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting its ground maintenance contractor to obtain their assessment of the condition of the front and rear lawn to the property. It accepted the assessment of its contractor that while the area was managed to the contract specification, the front and rear lawn would benefit from an upgrade to improve the bald patches in the grass and agreed for a variation order to supply and fit new beds to the front and rear lawn.

52. However, since its decision to improve the grounds maintenance at the property, the landlord has not taken further action to ensure the improvements to the front and rear lawns it agreed have been implemented. This is not appropriate as in its initial complaint response it gave a commitment to the resident that this would occur, and it should have taken steps to ensure it was progressed in a reasonable time frame.

53. In addition, the landlord’s estate inspection policy states that its inspectors conduct regular inspections of  its services that are delivered through its service charge. Therefore, its own monitoring does not seem to have highlighted that its contractor had not actioned the variation order to improve the front and rear lawns that it had agreed. 

repairs to the front and rear communal doors

54. The resident reported that the front and rear communal doors to the building were not operating correctly. The landlord has a responsibility under the terms of the lease to keep these fire safety doors in repair. The resident reported that the front communal entrance door could not close on 30 March 2021 and that the rear communal door was in disrepair. The landlord did not raise a repair until  the resident reported on a second occasion that the defect to the  communal door allowed access to people who did not live in the building. This was not appropriate as the landlord had a responsibility to keep the doors in repair and its estate inspection policy says that it will grade health and safety hazards on the estate. From the available evidence, it does not appear to have done so.

55. The landlord expected the works to the door to be completed by 29 April 2021. However, when the resident advised that the repair had not been carried out by that date, its records showed there were several reasons for the delay in completing the repair for example, the contractor did not receive the works order due to technology issues and some of the components for the doors were delayed as they were arriving from abroad. Whilst some of these factors are not entirely within the landlord’s control, it tried to obtain an intermediate resolution by arranging for its own staff to carry out temporary repairs to the rear communal door but was advised that this was not possible as this could jeopardize the integrity of the door.

56. The landlord has not provided this Service with the actual date when its contractor repaired the door. Its record indicates that the repair was expected to be completed by 28 May 2021 and the resident has informed this Service that the repairs were completed. However, the landlord did not address the completion of the repairs to the front and rear communal doors in its final complaint response. This was not a reasonable approach to take as the resident has raised concerns about the delay in completing the repairs and non-residents accessing the building as it did not have a functioning lock.

your reports of the carpets and internal walls of the building

57. The resident complained that she had lived in the property for over 21 years and that the communal carpet had not been replaced and that the communal walls were stained. In its initial complaint response, the landlord appropriately agreed to inspect the building the following day regarding the condition of the walls and the carpet and raise any repair works as necessary. This would enable it to understand the extent of the issues and the condition of the property especially as the resident had stated that work had not been carried out to these areas for a considerable period.  The landlord’s repair policy stipulates that its programme of planned maintenance includes the painting of the communal walls, and its inspection would have enabled it to assess whether further works were required to the area.

58.  The landlord’s decided that the condition of the carpet and walls constituted normal wear and tear and did not require any further action to be taken at the time. In its final complaint response, the landlord stated that it had reviewed its previous assessment, but it did not set out its findings following the visit to the property or provide an update to the resident explaining how it reached its conclusions regarding the condition of the walls or the ceiling. This was a service failure, and a recommendation is made later in the report regarding this.

Determination (decision)

59. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress to your report of a leak from the roof of the building.

60.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress to your report to repair the internal damage to your property.

61. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding your concerns about the grounds maintenance service.

62.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding your concerns about the repairs required to the communal front and rear doors

63. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding your concerns regarding the condition of the carpet and the internal communal walls at the building

Reasons

64. The landlord has accepted that it delayed in providing the appropriate repairs to the roof. It has apologised for this and offered a compensation award for its service failures.

65. The landlord has accepted that it provided incorrect advice to the resident regarding its responsibility for rectifying the damage to her home. It has apologised and made an offer of an award of compensation for this.

66. The landlord agreed to upgrade the grounds maintenance to the property, however, it has not evidenced that it monitored progress or that the work has been carried out.

67. The landlord inspected the front and rear communal doors and agreed that repairs were required. It was affected by circumstances beyond its control however, there was an unreasonable delay in carrying out the repairs.

68. The landlord inspected the condition of the communal walls and carpet and assessed that no further action was required. However, it has not provided its assessment to the resident in its complaint response or by communicating directly with her.

Orders

69. The landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.

70. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the service failures identified in this report, broken down as:

a.     £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her by the service failure in its handling of the monitoring of the variation to the grounds maintenance contract.

b.     £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her by the service failure int its handling of the repairs to the front and rear communal doors.

c.      £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her by the service failure to update the resident regarding its assessment of the communal carpet and walls in the property.

71. The landlord to carry out the upgrade to the grounds maintenance to the front and rear lawns of the property that it agreed in its complaint response.

72. The landlord to share with the resident its inspection report regarding the condition of the communal walls and carpet in the property.

73. The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

74. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation award that it agreed in its complaint responses of £420.