Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202440514)

Background

1. The resident reported 2 separate incidents of tiles falling from her roof in August 2023 and December 2024. The second incident resulted in damage to her car. She said the landlord was responsible because the roof should have been properly repaired in 2023. She raised safety concerns, particularly as she has a young child.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of the roof being unsafe and the subsequent damage this caused to her car.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of the roof being unsafe and the subsequent damage this caused to her car.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acted in line with its policies and met required timescales. It responded clearly to the resident’s queries, including why it would not pay compensation. It took additional steps to ensure the roof was safe.
5. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s complaint, addressed all aspects and explained how its actions aligned with its policies.

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.

6. The resident said the landlord was responsible for the damage to her car and the associated costs, including cleaning the car and having to use public transport. The landlord’s compensation policy requires it to investigate liability claims and provide a written decision. The landlord reviewed the repair history and confirmed the 2023 repair had been completed. There were no further repair records for the roof.
7. The landlord noted that the 2024 incident occurred during extreme adverse weather. It said there was no evidence of poor workmanship, or that the same tile came off twice. Based on this, the landlord did not accept liability. The landlord explained this in both the stage 1 and the final response. Its decision not to accept liability was reasonable, clearly communicated and in line with its compensation policy.
8. The resident said that because the landlord took too long to complete the repair, damage was being caused to the loft. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend appointable repairs, such as an unsafe or leaking roof, within 28 working days. The landlord completed the repair, which included patching a hole leading to the loft, within 17 working days of it being reported. The landlord addressed this in its final response, confirming it worked to its agreed timescales. As the work was completed promptly and no further issues were reported, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy.
9. The resident said she was unhappy with how a team member had spoken to her and had given her conflicting information about reporting health and safety concerns. The landlord reviewed the call and was satisfied that the team member had handled the query appropriately. It acknowledged the error about reporting concerns, apologised and confirmed the correct process. As the landlord investigated the issue, accepted and corrected the mistake, and addressed this clearly in its complaint response, its actions were appropriate.
10. The resident reported concerns about the safety of herself and her daughter and requested a full roof inspection. The landlord confirmed that its contractor had been instructed to assess all tiles on the roof and to flag if the roof needed any further work. The landlord said it hoped this would alleviate the resident’s safety concerns. This was a practical, additional measure which showed consideration to the resident’s reported worries.
11. In summary, the landlord acted reasonably. The resident did not report any issues with the roof until the second incident, which the landlord deemed to be weather-related, and its contractors did not identify any further problems. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to complete repairs as they were reported rather than carry out more in depth investigations. The landlord met its repairs timescales and addressed concerns appropriately, including taking additional steps to manage safety concerns. As such, we have found no maladministration.

12. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord met these timeframes at both stages. Its responses addressed all the issues raised, including confirming that its repair and complaint response timescales had been met. As the landlord followed the Code and responded appropriately, we have found no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

13. We did not identify any record keeping issues.

Communication

14. The landlord maintained good communication with the resident throughout the complaints process.