Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202219421)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219421

Tower Hamlets Community Housing

21 March 2024

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 around:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for service charge information.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks caused by roofing issues.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(d) and 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction respectively.
1. The level of rent or service charge or the amount of service charge increase.
This Service cannot investigate complaints which concern the level of service charges or increases to those service charges. This Service can look at whether the landlord provided an explanation but it unable to determine the reasonableness of service charges or a proposed increase. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness or a resident’s liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). The resident should seek further advice on any of these matters with the FTT.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder for the property. The property is a three-bed flat on the fourth floor of a communal building. The lease started on 28 October 2002. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for anybody in the property.
Following a previous complaint to the landlord around the condition of the roof in 2021, the landlord agreed to carry out an independent review of the condition of the roof. The resident experienced further leaks into his property in 2021 and notified the landlord of it. A further inspection and works were arranged in January 2022 with them being completed in June 2022.
In April 2022, the resident had raised other concerns around leaks in the communal area and questioned the service charges for the building. Despite assurances that it would provide this information, the landlord failed to do so. The resident raised a complaint around its failure to provide this information in October 2022. He then incorporated another complaint around leaks from the roof into the complaint process, as he had experienced further leaks in September 2022. The resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the complaint process in November 2022.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repair policy says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the communal areas and the roof of the building.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy includes two repair categories as follows:
1. Emergency repairs – these are repairs where there is an “immediate danger to life or limb”, major damage to the property or an electricity, heating or hot water fault. This kind of repair should be responded to within four hours to repair or make safe as necessary, with repairs completed the new available working day.
2. Routine repairs – these are non-urgent repairs where the repair does not cause immediate inconvenience or pose any danger. This kind of repair has a timeframe of 15 working days from the date of the report (excluding joinery, new windows and specialist works).
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says that within six months of receiving a service charge summary residents can request “reasonable facilities” for:
1. “inspecting the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary, and
2. taking copies or extracts from them.”
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process as follows:
1. Stage one – The landlord should acknowledge the complaint in writing within 5 working days with a full response being issued within 10 working days. These targets can be extended with the agreement of the complainant.
2. Stage two – The Chief Executive or a Senior Officer on their behalf should review the previous decision and provide a response within 20 working days. If a response cannot be provided on time, it will make the resident aware of why.

Summary of events

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s complaint, he expressed a desire to seek a refund of a payment of £10,000 from the landlord, for works carried out to the roof in 2004. Given that the complaint is around reports of leaks from the roof, it is reasonable that the quality of works carried out to the roof would be called into question. However, given the time since these works were completed, this Service would be unable to make a determination around the quality or suitability of the works carried out 20 years ago. On this basis, this Service cannot make a recommendation for the landlord to refund this payment.
In considering the resident’s complaint, this Service would usually only consider events within the period six months prior to the complaint being made. This would have meant that the start of this investigation was April 2022. However, given that one of the key issues was the condition of the roof and leaks that were reported as being caused by it, this has been extended. Given the relevance of events from September 2021 onwards, this has been detailed within the report and considered within the determination.

Events prior to complaint period

The resident and the landlord met on 17 September 2021 to discuss issues with pipework, leaks and concerns around the condition of the roof. After the meeting, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the following actions would be undertaken:
1. Landlord to attend and inspect the pipework, stopcock and redundant pipework in the property.
2. Landlord to arrange for an independent company to carry out a “roof leak and condition survey” to identify any defects.
3. Inspection of window hinges which the resident had claimed were damaged by water ingress.
The survey was completed in September 2021, an exact date was not provided. The report said “a total of 115 defects were identified to the perimeter gulley section” of the roof. It said that when the roof was converted, “water flow was not properly taken into account or calculated as no additional provision to take water off the roof was made”. It also said that there had been “many attempts in the past to repair and seal both the existing gullies and the inside of the parapet walls/coping stones” but none “have been carried out to an acceptable level”. The report suggested corrective works to address the defects, the estimated total for those works was £73,600. Landlord repair logs show no evidence of respective works orders being raised following this report.

Events within complaint period

An out-of-hours works order was raised on 31 December 2021 by the resident for the landlord to “trace and remedy leak, following ongoing major leak from roof”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 January 2022 and advised that there had been a leak prior to Christmas and it had caused further damage. He said “every other month the leak is occurring again” and when he complains “they keep telling me it’s getting sorted or its been repaired”. The resident expressed concern around the costs he was incurring repairing the damage caused by the leaks.
The landlord replied the next day and said they had requested that an Area Surveyor contact the resident to arrange an inspection.
The resident responded on 8 January 2022 and advised that he had spoken to the Area Surveyor who had said they would “visit or deal with the situation” but as yet nobody had attended.
On 31 January 2022, the landlord raised a works order “unblock roof at parapet, causing water ingress” with reference number 275863.
The landlord updated works order 275863 to show that a scaffolding request was raised on 23 February 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 April 2022 to report a leak on the communal stairway that he said “has been an ongoing issue for years”. He expressed a concern that this was a health and safety risk and attached a video for reference. The video shows visible surface water on the timber boxwork, which shows signs of water damage, in the corner of the stairwell, with pools of water collected on the floor at the bottom. Water is also visible on the stairs themselves and there is evidence of water leaking from pipes that run along the ceiling on other floors. The resident also said “no one has gotten back to me” around his service charge concerns.
The landlord responded the same day and said it had been unable to open the video file. It asked if it related to “the timber in the corner of the stair well which had the water marks” and if it was a “new leak or repair”. It said it believed “all the external works that were affecting your property” had been raised and “confirmed they had all been completed”.
The resident replied the next day and said that the leak was on the staircase and “it is constantly leaking on all floors”. He said that works to his property were almost complete, except for the pointing on his balcony, but he was concerned that the staircase leak would affect his “newly decorated property”. The landlord replied the same day and said it would be attending on 22 April 2022 to inspect the leak on the staircase.
The resident emailed on 24 April 2022 and said that the leak from the staircase had caused a leak in his kitchen. He said that despite its assurances, it had not resolved the leak on the staircase.
The landlord replied on 25 April 2022 and said that a contractor had attended the week before and reported that there was no leak. It said it would arrange for the Area Surveyor to attend and inspect the leak. The resident responded the same day and asked for a meeting to discuss the issues further. The landlord arranged a meeting for the following week and said that the contractor would be recalled to the property to “trace and remedy the leak” and provide a report.
On the same day, a works order was raised for “communal tank leaking into stairwell”. This works order was marked as completed on 12 May 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 April 2022 and requested copies of service charge related invoices for the previous five years.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 May 2022 and acknowledged his request. It said it would provide the requested documents within 90 days, which would have been 1 August 2022.
Works order reference 275863 was updated on 18 May 2022 to show that the requested scaffolding had been erected.
The landlord marked works order reference 275863 as “job completed” on 22 June 2022. There was no detail added to show what kind of repairs had been completed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 August 2022 and said it would provide copies of the invoices in three batches. It said it would provide statements for 2020/2021 by 8 August 2022, three years statements between 2017 and 2020 by 17 August 2022 and the previous year’s statement, 2021-2022 by 30 September 2022.
The landlord incorrectly emailed the resident on 8 August 2022 around the release of service charge statements but these referred to a different building. The resident questioned this in an email dated 14 August 2022 and the landlord responded the next day to apologise for its mistake. The landlord issued a further apology on 24 August 2022 for the continued delay in it providing the correct service charge statements.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 September 2022 and said “a leak is still coming through to my living room ceiling and electric”. He expressed a concern for the safety implications on his tenants. He questioned the landlord saying “you assured me that the roof and the leak had been dealt with” and asked if it would pay for the damage caused by the most recent leaks. The landlord replied the same day and said they would have somebody manage it that day.
The resident replied on 9 September 2022 and provided videos he had taken which showed pools of water collected in the box gutter of the roof. On the same day, the landlord raised a works order which was detailed as follow on works to reference 275863.
On 15 September 2022, a further works order, reference 285238, was raised to “carry out works as per quote”. The works order noted this as “works to parapet wall, gutter detail, repointing and replace”.
A contractor attended the property on 21 September 2022 and identified “water ingress to the living room”. It noted that there were other areas but these “look like cold bridging and condensation issues”. It reported a “defective parapet wall” and “box gutter detail had failed”. The contractor “refixed felt to parapet wall and applied fleece and PMMA liquid to the box gutter”. It provided photographs which show treatment of an area of the box gutter.
Works order reference 285238 was marked as completed on 27 September 2022.
Between 27 September 2022 and 29 September 2022, across three emails, the landlord and resident discussed recent inspections and work at the property. The landlord said it had attended on 21 September 2022 and carried out works to address some of the issues but there were outstanding works to the balcony door seals and pointing around the balcony doors. The resident said there were additional repairs required, as the balcony door did not close due to water damage, the bedroom window did not close and the living room ceiling required work. The landlord raised a works order for these jobs on 29 September 2022.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 3 October 2022, as he had still not received any of the service charge documents from the landlord.
The landlord responded on 4 October 2022 and apologised for the delays. It explained that the process of obtaining the invoices was a “significantly resource intense activity”. It said it was “experiencing delays in third parties sending information” and “it is outside of our control and depending on good will of the third parties”. It said it was confident that it would provide the information “no later than 24 October 2022”.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email on 5 October 2022, accepting the proposed date but advised that he wished to proceed with a formal complaint.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 14 October 2022. It acknowledged failings in its management of the resident’s request. It suggested methods by which it could have done so and apologised for the ongoing delays. It maintained the most recently proposed deadline of 24 October 2022. No other actions or proposals are made at this stage.
The resident spoke with the landlord by telephone on 21 October 2022 and advised that he wanted the complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaint process. The landlord acknowledged this and confirmed escalation the same day, it also asked what the resident would like in order to resolve the complaint. The resident responded the same day and said he wanted itemised bills and invoices relating to the service charges, as per his initial request.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 October 2022 and advised that the next step of its complaint process involved a panel meeting to discuss his complaint. The resident was invited to attend the meeting. The resident replied on 27 October 2022 and indicated that he wished to attend the meeting. On the same day, the landlord emailed the resident with a link to the service charge invoices that he had requested. The email explained that the link was only active for six weeks and was ‘read only’.
The panel meeting took place on 21 November 2022. During the meeting, the resident raised the following concerns:
1. He was paying service charges for services that he did not receive, such as window cleaning. The resident said that there were no communal windows for it to clean and that it did not carry out cleaning as he had carried out cleaning himself.
2. He said issues around repairs had “forced him and his family to move out of his property”. The resident said that repairs had not been completed, despite the landlord saying it had completed them.
3. The resident provided a copy of an independent report into the condition of the roof. He said that this was evidence that previous roofing works in 2004, that he had paid £10,000 towards, were not completed correctly.
4. The resident said that he had paid for repairs to the roof and cleaning the gutters himself, as the landlord had not completed them. He said that water leaks continued to damage his property.
5. The resident acknowledged that some roof works had been carried out by the landlord but these had not addressed the leaks he was experiencing.
6. The resident said that the windows and brickwork on his property had been damaged by the leaks.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 23 November 2022. The landlord did not specify whether it upheld the complaint or not. Within its response it said the following:
1. It acknowledged that it had failed to meet the deadlines it proposed around providing the service charge information.
2. It was satisfied that it had explained why there were such delays in providing the information.
3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s claim that there were no communal windows but he was being charged for cleaning. However, it offered nothing further on this point.
4. It said that after completing a “deep dive into your service charge” it found that each resident of the building were owed a credit of £127.07. No further explanation is offered as to what this credit was for. However, the landlord said it would also provide a goodwill gesture of £50 for the delay in providing the refund.
5. The landlord said it carried out an inspection at the property the day before but there was no evidence of “water ingress or water penetration in your flat and no issues were diagnosed with the roof”.
6. It said that following the surveyor visit, it had arranged for some works to be “completed in a timely manner”. The works were as follows:
  1. Clear hopper head.
  2. Instruct contractor to survey blown windows – A works order was raised for this work on 23 November 2022.
  3. Point around bay window to lounge.
  4. Raise order to repair cast iron pipe to rear.
  5. Raise order to investigate ongoing leak to communal stairs.

Post complaint process

A works order was raised to “point around bay window to lounge” on 8 December 2022. This was closed at a later but unspecified date. The landlord said this was due to “access denied by leaseholder”.
The landlord provided the resident with the service charge information for 2021-2022 in December 2022.
The resident and landlord held a meeting on 20 December 2022 to discuss the issues with the roof. The resident provided a recording of this meeting for reference. Within the recording, the resident expressed his concerns around the ongoing leaks at the property. The landlord said that during its last visit it found no evidence of water ingress into his property and said the issue may be “cold-bridging”. The landlord said it wanted to conduct another survey of the roof to identify any problems. The resident questioned why a further survey was needed when there was one carried out in 2021. The landlord did not provide an answer as to why a new survey would be required. It said it would have a new survey carried out but the surveyor would not be provided with a copy of the previous report. The resident agreed to a new survey as he said he “just wanted it sorting out”. Despite a request from this Service, the landlord provided no evidence of this survey being arranged.
On 6 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and said he had been into the office on 4 January 2023 and was told that the hopper and gutter had been cleaned. He provided photographs taken that day which show the that hopper had vegetation growing from it. The resident said that this was causing mould in the property. On the same day, the landlord raised a works order, reference 290604, to “clear hopper head at front elevation”.
The landlord marked works order 290604 as completed on 25 January 2023. Following a request from this Service, it provided evidence of the completion of this work.
A works order was raised on 10 February 2023 for “asphalt repair outside flat 15, water ingress”.
The landlord wrote to the residents, no date provided on the example letter it provided. This said that following an inspection on 20 February 2022, this date may be incorrect, it had been informed that there were several defects to the fourth floor communal asphalt. It said work would be carried out to address this and the work would start on 6 March 2023. The landlord carried out these works at the building and these were recorded as being completed on 13 March 2023.
The landlord raised a works order for “repair cast iron pipe to rear” on 15 February 2023. This was marked as completed on 13 May 2023. Following our request, it provided evidence of the completion of this work.
A contractor contacted the resident around April 2023 to arrange an inspection of the windows, as per the works order raised on 23 November 2022. The contractor said that the resident requested an email explaining the purpose of its request, along with a proposed date. The contractor said that it emailed the resident on 13 April 2023 with an appointment date for 17 April 2023 but received no response. It advised the landlord that it contacted the resident again but he “refused to provide access as many other contractors have been to the property and now this is a legal case” and they were directed to solicitors. Further requests were made to the resident in May 2023 and June 2023 but he continued to refuse to provide access. The contractor closed the works order following the access issues.
Within the further information requested by this Service, the landlord was asked to explain its actions following the survey in September 2021. In its response it said “Our previous Head of Repairs queried the information provided in the report and therefore did not proceed working with the contractor”. It said that a different contractor carried out works on 21 September 2022, which it said “addressed some of the defects identified in the 2021 report when making the roof watertight”. The landlord said that on 28 September 2022, it inspected the works carried out on 21 September 2022 and “determined that the quality of the work completed did not meet the required standards”. It said that “consequently, roof renewal works have been incorporated into its investment planned programme for 2023/2024” which it said “aims to provide a permanent solution, scheduled for completion before the end of the financial year”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.

Following the resident’s request for service charge information on 25 April 2022, the landlord offered to provide the information within 90 days. However, it failed to provide the information until around six months later, on 24 October 2022. Although it offered apologies for the delay in August 2022, no further timeframe was offered to indicate when he would receive them. This could only have added to the frustration that the resident had already expressed and his feeling that the landlord was not allowing him access to this information.
When the landlord provided access to the invoices, it was read only access which also meant that the resident was unable to take copies of the invoices for his reference. Given the volume of information provided, it was unreasonable for the landlord to consider the time restricted access adequate in allowing the resident to inspect the documents in full. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it has not acted in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which says that the resident should be provided ‘reasonable facilities’ to inspect the documents and the ability to take copies of them.
The resident raised concerns after viewing the information, around the accuracy of the accounting, based on what he had seen. The resident has not provided any evidence or detail of any inaccuracies, so this Service is unable to comment on his specific concerns. However, given the limited access to the documents, it is understandable that he was unable to provide the detail this would require.
When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks caused by roofing issues.

It is evident that following the survey in September 2021, the landlord was made aware of a significant number of defects on the roof of the building. The landlord took the decision to arrange none of the recommended works following the survey, as it “queried” the findings. Given the proposed costs involved in the repairs proposed in the survey, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the findings, especially as proposed costs may need to be passed on to the residents. However, the landlord then took no steps to justify its decision to ignore the outcome of the survey by obtaining a second opinion. Instead, it took no action to satisfy itself as to the condition of the roof, in doing so, reducing the chance to avoid any potential further damage to the resident’s property. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord, as it failed to act on important information around the condition of the roof. This lack of action meant that despite being reassured by the landlord that it would take positive steps to address his concerns, the resident was left with the risk of further damage to his property.
In December 2021, the resident reported further damage caused by water ingress from the roof. Within the description of the works order raised on 31 December 2021 it noted that it was “following ongoing major leak from roof”. This demonstrates the landlord was aware of an ongoing issue with the roof.
Following the closure of the works order from 31 December 2021, the resident raised further concerns by email on 3 January 2022. These were again around the overall condition of the roof, given the repeated and continuing leaks causing damage to his property. Although the landlord agreed to send a surveyor, the resident had to chase this with the landlord as nobody had attended. Details of the eventual inspection were not recorded on the repair log but a works order was raised on 31 January 2022 to “unblock roof at parapet”. The 20 working days between the resident’s email and the works order being raised shows a delay in either the inspection being completed, the works order being raised, or delays in both. This is another failing by the landlord, as it continued to take an unreasonable amount of time to take these steps. This could only have added the resident’s feeling of being overlooked and his concerns not being taken seriously. This could also have led to further damage in the property.
After the works order was raised on 31 January 2022, the landlord did not complete this work until 22 June 2022, almost six months later. During this time, it took 18 working days for it to raise a request for scaffolding, a further 59 working days for the scaffolding to be erected and another 24 working days for the work to be completed. It is accepted that this kind of work could be considered ‘specialist’ and therefore it would not fall into the non-urgent repairs timeframe of 15 working days, set out in the repair policy. However, the 101 working days that it took to complete this work cannot be considered reasonable, especially when 76 of those days were just arranging for the scaffolding to be erected. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as there were significant and unnecessary delays in the work being completed. This could only have added to the distress and inconvenience for the resident following previous damage caused by the leaks.
It is evident that the works completed in June 2022 failed to address the cause of the leaks, as a further report of leaks from the roof was raised on 8 September 2022. The landlord attended again and arranged further works, which were completed on 27 September 2022. The photographs provided show that it applied a treatment to make the area water tight. This was only applied to part of the box gutter area, presumably above the residents property. However, given the inconsistent nature of leaks, there can be no guarantee that only applying the treatment to the area directly above a property, would stop water ingress into that property. Although no further water ingress was reported prior to the end of the complaint process in November 2022, the resident has indicated that there were further leaks and water ingress at the property in 2023.
Within the stage two response provided on 23 November 2022, the landlord agreed to carry out further works at the property, which had been linked to water ingress or were damage caused by it. The landlord said these would be carried out in a timely manner but only two works orders were raised within 28 days of the complaint response being issued. The resident had to chase the others with the landlord, with the first one of those works being completed on 25 January 2023, over two months after the stage two response was issued. Given that this was to clear the hopper head, it could not be considered a specialist job and therefore it should have been completed within 15 working days, as per the responsive repair policy. Works to repair a case iron pipe took around three months. These demonstrate a lack of urgency and oversight by the landlord to complete the works that were proposed in the complaint response. This could only have added to the resident’s feeling of being ignored and frustrated by the landlord’s actions along with the inconvenience of these repairs remaining incomplete.
Within its evidence, the landlord provided repair logs for both the resident’s property and for the communal building. Reports of leaks and other similar issues such as blocked drains and water ingress are mostly logged against the building. Within the logs provided, there are at least 34 instances of similar repairs being logged between January 2020 and February 2023. These were not all for the resident’s property and most records did not specify which property made the report. However, this shows that reports of leaks and similar issues were not isolated to the resident’s property, demonstrating the need for a larger scale permanent solution to these issues. However, despite these reports, a survey showing numerous defects and continued complaints, the landlord ignored this and continued to address the individual faults with smaller scale repairs. Although the landlord has since proposed that the roof be addressed as part of its planned works programme for 2023/2024, the resident was left to suffer the consequences of the landlords failure to carry out a larger scale repair sooner.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to take adequate steps to act on the results of a survey it agreed to undertake due to ongoing issues with leaks from the roof. It “disputed” the findings, despite continued complaints and significant evidence of similar leaks and works being required historically for the building. When it did agree to carry out smaller scale works, it failed to complete them in a reasonable timeframe, with a lack of urgency and oversight shown by the landlord. During this time, the resident experienced several instances of water ingress, causing damage to his property, which he then needed to raise requests for the landlord to repair. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord provided a response to the initial stage one complaint in line with its policy and addressed the complaint in full, as at this stage, it was about the delay in the landlord providing the service charge information. It acknowledged its failing and proposed a timeframe for it to provide the information, which it then met. Although the landlord did not provide a response to the stage two complaint within 20 working days, the resident was kept informed throughout and attended a panel review meeting that the landlord proposed as part of its investigation. The response was issued within a few days of the meeting.
As the landlord had provided access to the service charge information in October 2022, the focus of the stage two investigation was the issue with the roof. However, it did explain that it had identified an overpayment of service charges and advised that this would be refunded to the resident and other residents in the building. In addressing the issues with the roof, the landlord proposed repairs to damages caused by the leaks, which it said would be carried out in a timely manner. These proposals were reasonable given the complaint but the landlord only offered a compensation payment for the late provision of the service charge information. It failed to provide any recognition of the continued instances of damage caused by the leaks and the distress and inconvenience it had caused the resident. This demonstrates a lack of understanding and a failure to acknowledge that its lack of action had caused continued issues for the resident.
Following the stage two response, the landlord failed to carry out the proposed actions in a timely manner. Only one of the works orders was raised that day, with one raised two weeks later, two being raised six weeks later and one raised almost three months after the review. The first of the proposed repairs was not completed until over two months after the review and the resident had to chase this with the landlord during that time due to it causing further issues in heavy rain. The last of the repairs that it could evidence as being completed, was not done until 13 May 2023, almost six months after the review. The time taken to both raise and complete the works orders demonstrates a lack of learning on the landlord’s part, as the lack of urgency in it completing works had formed part of his concerns during the previous year and those he voiced in the review meeting. This lack of learning on the part of the landlord is not in line with the Principles of Dispute resolution and could only have added to the continued frustration, distress and inconvenience that the resident had experienced.
It is evident from further information provided by the resident that he continued to experience damage to his property as a result of water ingress from the roof throughout 2023. This shows that the landlord continued to ignore the ongoing issues that caused the leaks, as no action was taken to address the condition of the roof, despite this being highlighted once again within the complaint. Although it is evident that it has since decided to carry out works to the roof, it has only made this information available to this Service in January 2024.
Overall, the landlord managed the complaint in line with the timeframes set out in its policy. However, despite agreeing to a reasonable action plan, it failed to carry out the agreed works in a timely manner, as per the response. The landlord has shown a lack of learning from the complaint as it continued to manage repairs in the same manner. Further to this, no consideration was made to the condition of the roof, despite the previous survey and the continued nature of the leaks and damage caused by them. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.
In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks caused by roofing issues.
In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide the service charge information within the timeframes it set out and failed to keep the resident updated when it did. Although it did provide the information to the resident, it failed to do so in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act, as the resident’s access was time limited and did not provide him with the facility to take copies of them. This meant that he was not offered adequate opportunity to digest the information and raise questions around any aspect of it.
After being made aware of potential defects on the roof of the building, the landlord failed to take any action to repair them, or alternatively, to reinforce its belief that the survey was incorrect. Instead, the roof was left in the same condition, which meant that the resident continued to experience leaks which caused damage to his property. Each instance caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, as he sought to both get repairs completed and to get the landlord to take action to address a long running issue with the roof. The landlord showed no urgency to address the damage that was caused by these leaks, with repairs taking as long as six months to complete. Even after it had completed these works, the landlord found that they were not “to standard” as the same leaks occurred. Despite assurances that it would complete repairs proposed during the complaint in a timely manner, these also fell well outside of it’s repair policy timeframe. Given the landlord’s reluctance to repair the roof, the resident has experienced similar leaks and damage to his property since September 2021.
Despite managing the resident’s complaint to its timeframes and in a reasonable manner, the landlord failed to action the agreed works from the complaint response in a reasonable timeframe. It showed no learning from the complaint, as it centred on the landlord’s lack of urgency in carrying out works and it ignoring an ongoing issue that it had been aware of for some time.

Orders

The Chief Executive of the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord should provide paper copies of the service charge information for the five years between 2018 and 2023 within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident and offer to rearrange and then complete the following works, within 28 days of the date of this report, that were not completed following the stage two response in November 2022:
1. Instruct our contractor to survey the blown windows – ref 288518.
2. Point around bay window to lounge – ref 285762.
The landlord is ordered to carry out the roof renewal works to “provide a permanent solution” that it said it had “incorporated into its investment planned programme for 2023/2024” within 12 weeks of the date of this report. Following this work, it should provide the following:
1. Detailed breakdown of all repairs completed as part of the roof renewal works.
2. Evidence of adequate testing being carried out to ensure the effectiveness of those works in providing a “permanent solution”.
The landlord to pay the resident £1,800 comprising of:
1. £1,400 for the distress and inconvenience caused during the 14 months between the survey being carried out in September 2021 and the end of the complaint process in November 2022 due to the landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks due to roofing issues.
2. £200 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.
3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord must review the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within four weeks of the date of this report and provide a report showing that this has been brought into its operations identified improvements within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider at minimum:
1. Ensuring it has adequate oversight measures in place to meet timeframes set out in its repair policy in respect of repairs linked to leaks, damp and mould.
2. Ensuring it has adequate oversight measures in place to complete actions proposed within its complaints, in a timely manner.
3. Ensuring adequacy of records when repairs and inspections are taking place and detailing the outcomes.