Tower Hamlets Council (202231818)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231818

Tower Hamlets Council

4 April 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the roof leak into the resident’s property.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The lease commenced on 21 September 2022. The property is described as a 1-bedroom flat located on the 4th floor of a block. The landlord is an arms length management organisation managing the property on behalf of the council.
The landlord’s records show that on 7 November 2022, it raised an emergency order to trace and remedy an uncontrollable leak though the kitchen ceiling when it rained. The works order shows that it attended to carry out the emergency repair and removed the part of the kitchen ceiling that was bowed.
The following day, the landlord raised a follow-on order which stated that scaffold was required to access and to repair the roof above the kitchen.
Scaffold was erected to the property on 13 November 2022. The inspection showed that the lead flashing and gully pot had been stolen. The lead flashing was subsequently replaced.
The resident complained about the roof leak on 5 December 2022. He said that the leak was reported on 7 November 2022 and the landlord’s contractor attended that day and created a hole in the kitchen ceiling. He reported that when it rained, he experienced water ingress into the property, dust from the roof and the temperature within the flat was cold, ranging between 7 to 11 degrees. Finally, he had spent at least 40 hours chasing the landlord’s contractors to repair the roof and the repair to the kitchen ceiling could not be carried out until the roof was fixed.
The resident also stated that his preferred outcome was for the landlord to refund his rent, council tax and service charge for the period he was affected – November to January 2023. The resident also requested that the landlord provide compensation for the stress and inconvenience that he experienced.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on the repairs to the roof on 7 December 2022 and 12 December 2022. The resident advised that he would be out of the country from 18 December 2022 to 30 December 2022. In response, the landlord informed the resident on 13 December 2022 that it had renewed the flashing and slates to the roof.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 19 December 2022. It apologised that its service fell below its standards. A summary of its findings are:
1. On receiving the report of water ingress into his property, an emergency works order was raised and its contractor attended.
2. The kitchen was made safe by removing the bowed section.
3. Scaffolding was erected on 15 November 2022 and its contractor attended on 25 November 2022. Following an inspection of the roof, more scaffolding was required across the parapet gutter for the cover flashing and slates to be replaced.
4. The cover flashing and slates were renewed on 13 December 2022.
5. It apologised that the resident was not kept updated or provided information regarding progress of the works.
6. It signposted the resident to make an insurance claim for any loss or damage to the property. It suggested that the resident should contact his insurance provider and provided a link to make a building insurance claim.
7. It offered a compensation award of £30 for the poor service received and advised that any remedial work would be overseen to completion.
8. The resident was given the name of a point of contact.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated his complaint on the same day (19 December 2022). He complained that the landlord had not addressed its poor communication towards him or the rudeness of the contractors’ staff. He experienced a further delay in getting the kitchen ceiling repaired as the contractor could not attend until 5 January 2023. He requested £10,000 in compensation as between him and his girlfriend they had spent over 30 hours chasing the landlord. The compensation request included the water penetration into the property as each time it rained, parts of the roof (including dust) fell on his head and affected his dog. He said the property was cold and affecting his mental health.
The landlord and resident communicated on 21 December 2022 and 23 December 2022. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the resident’s dissatisfaction following a phone call with its staff but advised that it was unable to review the phone calls as they were not recorded.
2. Confirmed that the resident should made an insurance claim for any damage that had occurred to his property.
3. Advised that it had tried to bring forward the repair to the roof due to the Christmas holidays. The earliest date its contractor could attend to inspect the kitchen ceiling was 3 January 2023.
4. Clarified that the time taken to complete the repair to the kitchen ceiling would depend on the damage.
5. Confirmed that the resident wanted to escalate the complaint.
On 31 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that he had returned home to find the property flooded.
The landlord informed its contractor on 3 January 2023 that the resident had reported the recurrence of the leak into the kitchen and requested that the roofers re-attend the property.
The landlord was informed by its contractor on 6 January 2023 that the leak had occurred in a different location in the kitchen. A cherry picker was required as there was a split to the lead box gutter.
The resident chased the complaint response on 17 January 2023 and in response the landlord confirmed that the complaint investigation had commenced. The resident advised that though the landlord had confirmed in writing the roof had been repaired in December 2022, the roof repair remained unresolved. The resident repeated that due to the water ingress, the property was cold.
The landlord’s contractor told it on 25 January 2023 that they did not have an appointment with the resident on 6 January 2023. The contractor confirmed that they attended using a cherry picker to resolve the leak on 18 January 2023.
On 30 January 2023, the landlord provided its final complaint response. The landlord apologised that the resident remained dissatisfied with its service and that the water ingress in the property since November 2022 had remained unresolved. A summary of its findings are:
1. The lead flashing to the roof was replaced on 13 December 2022.
2. A further leak caused a split in the lead gutter and this was resolved on 18 January 2023.
3. It apologised that it did not keep the resident updated on the progress of the works that were undertaken.
4. It had learnt from the complaint and it had reminded officers to keep residents informed of the actions it was taking, including any delays that had occurred.
5. It increased the compensation award to £70 and signposted the resident to make an insurance claim for any loss or damage that was provided.

Events after the complaint process was exhausted.

The landlord’s records from 8 February 2023 show that the repairs required to the roof affected multiple properties. It inspected the water tanks and loft space which were not found to be leaking.
On 30 March 2023, the resident contacted this Service to advise that the leak had returned. The landlord attended on 19 April 2023 and carried out repairs to the box gutter above the kitchen.
The resident expressed to the landlord on 5 July 2023 that it had not addressed the cause of the water ingress. He had experienced minor water ingress from rain the previous day and intended to make a new complaint.
The landlord’s contractor advised on 7 August 2023 that the roof to the building required replacement and only patch repairs should be carried out until this occurred.
On 21 March 2024, the resident informed this Service that the roof above his kitchen was replaced in September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns about the continued water ingress into the property. As the continued concerns about the water ingress did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. They may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied.

Landlord’s handling of roof leak

It is understandable that this situation is likely to have caused frustration and distress to the resident. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord has acted in a reasonable way when considering and responding to the resident’s reports about water ingress into the property.
The water ingress started around 6 weeks after the resident’s lease commenced. The landlord initially acted in accordance with its repair policy and treated the report as an emergency repair, attending within an appropriate timescale to make safe the kitchen ceiling. It is noted that as part of the purchase of the property, the resident was required to carry out a survey which should have identified any faults with the roof.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor advised that they could not repair the roof without extending scaffolding that was erected to the building. Also, a cherry picker was required to carry out works to the flashing to the roof. The lead flashing was replaced on 13 December 2022. This was appropriate to resolve the cause of the water ingress into the resident’s property.
The landlord’s repair policy states that following an emergency repair, it may not be always possible to carry out all the necessary repairs. Therefore, the landlord acted in accordance with this and completed the repairs within 26 working days which was narrowly outside of its repairs standard.
The evidence shows that an appointment was subsequently arranged for 6 January 2023 to attend the resident’s property regarding the outstanding repair to the ceiling. From what can be seen, the landlord’s contractor disputed that an appointment had been arranged even though the landlord, in its communication with the resident, tried to bring the appointment forward. The contradiction in its record keeping contributed to the resident’s dissatisfaction and was not in keeping with its responsibilities to keep clear and accurate records.
Around 2 weeks later, the resident reported that on return from holiday, there was another instance of water ingress into the kitchen. An inspection was carried out which concluded that the reason for the second leak was due to a defect to the gutter. There is no evidence to indicate that that the new repairs undertaken were due to any poor workmanship by the landlord’s contractor; instead, it was identified that the roof required replacement to completely resolve the problem. In the meantime, it was reasonable for the landlord to complete repairs that were identified as necessary to prevent water ingress.
The resident has stated that the landlord failed to keep him informed or updated regarding the progress of works to the property. As a result, he and his partner had to make significant contact with the landlord to obtain information on the work that it had undertaken. The landlord in its complaints review accepted that it could have communicated better with the resident by providing clear and timely information about the works that it intended to carry out.
The resident requested compensation of £10,000 from the landlord, explaining the impact of having part of the kitchen ceiling removed in November 2022. It is acknowledged that the resident was inconvenienced. However, while this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Neither can this Service award damages or consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint, which is likely better suited to a court to consider via a personal injury claim.
It is noted that the repairs required to resolve the water ingress into the property were not connected and related to the age of the roof. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to provide information and signpost the resident to its insurers.
This Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from mistakes. If the landlord has recognised its service failures and taken appropriate action to put this right, including making a reasonable offer of compensation, then the landlord may not be ordered by this Service to take further action. One of the factors to be considered is whether the redress offered by the landlord is proportionate to the severity of its service failure.
Looking at the severity of the service failure in this particular case, the landlord has acknowledged that it could have communicated better with the resident. The resident has requested that the landlord pay a compensation award of £10,000 to reflect the distress and inconvenience that he experienced. Without wishing to diminish the resident’s experiences, the evidence shows that the steps that the landlord took were reasonable to resolve his reports of water ingress into his kitchen and evidence of significant service failure has not been seen.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors, including any likely distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident.
In considering whether the amount offered by the landlord in this case is reasonable, the Ombudsman has referred to our Remedies Guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord has apologised but its offer of compensation does not adequately reflect the inconvenience experienced by the resident even though the period considered as part of this investigation was relatively short (between November 2022 and January 2023).
The Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord’s £70 compensation award is not reasonable as the resolution of the water ingress into the kitchen was distressing and frustrating for the resident. While the landlord acted to address the water ingress, there were delays that resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates about the actions it was taking. In addition, the resident raised concerns about the temperature in his property and it is unclear that the landlord addressed this point or sought to alleviate these living conditions pending the resolution of the leak.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the roof leak into the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the communication failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £200, including the £70 it offered through its complaints process.
Evidence of compliance with these orders should be provided to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.