Tower Hamlets Homes (202107850)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107850

Tower Hamlets Homes

4 October 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve a leak in the resident’s ceiling.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s redress and compensation policy states that compensation cannot be at the expense of real solutions and that the problem must be resolved or have a clear timetable of actions to rectify the situation before any compensation is paid.
  2. The policy further states that the level of compensation will be determined by the particular facts and goes on to suggest that awards are likely to be in the broad range of £200 to £1,000 for a year with broadly pro rata amounts for shorter or longer periods.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises leaking roofs and repairs to plasterwork as the type of repairs that should be carried out within 20 working days. However, other factors, such as the need to erect scaffolding, can add unavoidable delay, which the tenants would be informed of.

Background

  1. The property is a third floor, two bedroomed flat. The resident lives there with his partner and two children and their tenancy began in February 2015.

Summary

  1. The landlord attended the property on 24 February 2020 to investigate a roof leak in the bedroom of the property as the resident had reported that a chunk of plaster was missing from the ceiling and that there were also cracks on the wall. The landlord’s notes of the visit state that there were no chunks out of the ceiling and that the damage was relatively minor. It said there was an issue with the roof directly above that was affecting the resident’s flat and two other properties. The roofers had been spoken to who said that there were a lot of issues with the PMMA liquid and parapet walls following works during the capital works scheme and that there were splits to the PMMA liquid. It was stated that a major overhaul and rectification of those areas was needed and a works order was raised for the landlord’s contractor to deal with the issue.
  2. On 16 October 2020 a work order was raised to erect a ladder to inspect the eaves level of the roof of the property. The note of the inspection is that water penetration into the bedroom ceiling had been traced up to the roof and the cause was a broken tile that was allowing rainwater through.
  3. On 21 October 2020 the landlord has a note that the resident reported that the bedroom ceiling had fallen down and that the ceiling was bowing from previous leaks. A works order was raised to trace and remedy the leak to the bedroom and living room ceiling.
  4. Engineers attended on 27 October 2020 to make safe the ceiling. A section of it had collapsed due to the loft insulation being heavier due to water saturation. It was stated that the leak had been traced to the roof and that a roofer was required.
  5. Roofers then attended on 17 November 2020 and requested that scaffolding be erected to facilitate a closer inspection to identify all remedial works.
  6. On 15 December 2020 the resident made a formal complaint. He said that there had been inadequate repairs and the roof had been leaking since December 2015. The latest issue had been reported in October 2020 and it was still leaking.
  7. On 5 January 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that the resident reported multiple repairs on several occasions, the most recent being in October 2020. It said that the engineers had removed the loft insulation to prevent further damage. There was a delay to the erecting of scaffolding that was due to a combination of issues. Firstly, bad weather from February 2020 had created an initial backlog and then the severe restrictions in working practices due to the Covid pandemic meant that scaffolding was unable to be erected for a prolonged period during 2020, which had further exacerbated the situation. In addition, all but emergency scaffolding is halted over the Christmas period due to building safety concerns. However, the landlord said that the resident had not been kept up to date on the status of his repair and it apologised for this. It said that a member of its projects team would contact the resident no later than 15 January 2021 with an update about the scaffolding and then keep him informed until works were concluded. The response concluded by saying someone would contact the resident within five working days to check that he was satisfied with the way his complaint had been handled.
  8. On 12 January 2021, a business development support officer (BDSO) emailed the resident to check that he was satisfied that the complaint had been resolved. The resident was asked to provide his phone number if he would prefer a return phone call. The resident emailed back with his phone number on the same day.
  9. On 29 January 2021 the resident requested that his complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He said that since receiving the email from the BDSO, he had replied to her multiple times to try and get her to call him. He said he had not been given a direct email or phone number to contact the complaints team on. He said he had called the landlord on 18 January 2021 to be told that the scaffolding was going up on 25 January 2021, however he had received no updates about that from either the contractor or the landlord.
  10. The landlord has a note of a phone call with the resident on 2 February 2021. It says the resident is unhappy as he has chased multiple times and is always told he will get a call back within four hours but nobody ever calls. He said he had been given dates for the scaffolding but that they never attend or update him. The leak has never been resolved and is affecting more than just his property.
  11. On 4 February 2021 the contractor emailed the resident to inform him that the scaffolding would be erected during the week beginning 8 February 2021.
  12. An inspection of the roof was carried out on 17 February 2021. It found defects to the pitched roof and the PMMA gutter that was causing water ingress into the resident’s flat. Follow on works/recommendations were noted as: ‘We need to remove existing tiles 20sqm & install new felt batten 20sqm, Apply PMMA liquid to gutter detail 7sqm plus 7lm of upstands Other contractors to attend to remove wet loft insulation.’
  13. On 4 March 2021 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The response set out that the resident was unhappy with the handling of repairs to the roof as he had had to chase the issue and had not been kept fully informed either by the landlord or its contractor. Furthermore, the leak had not yet been resolved. The response accepted that the resident had not received a call back on 18 January 2021 as promised and that he was not contacted by the customer relations team until 2 February 2021. The landlord apologised for this and said that this shortcoming had been raised with the relevant staff. The response further explained that an inspection on 17 February 2021 had identified various defects (as stated above) and that a variation to the existing works order had been agreed on 22 February 2021. The landlord ended by saying that it had asked its contractor to keep the resident updated about the date when the works were to take place.
  14. Repairs to the roof were completed on 9 March 2021 and the scaffolding was removed.
  15. The contractor emailed the resident on 18 March 2021 to explain that the roof repairs had been completed and that a new works order had been raised for a different contractor to attend to remove wet loft insulation and that those contractors would be contacting the resident directly to arrange an appointment.
  16. On 19 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that he had been contacted by the sub-contractors but that he did not have access to the loft area. Therefore he had advised the sub-contractor to contact the landlord or the main contractor. The landlord forwarded the email to its contactor the same day. It did not receive a response and so chased the contractor on 30 March 2021. This time the contractor did respond to say that it had advised the sub-contractor that the loft was a communal area and that a key was required.
  17. On 8 April 2021 the landlord asked the contractor for an update and was told that the work had been completed on 1 April 2021. Later the same day the landlord then forwarded the contractor an email from the resident asking about what was happening with regard to the bowed ceiling in his property.
  18. On 12 April 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to inform him that a works order to rectify the ceiling was being raised and that its contractor would contact him within a couple of days with an appointment.
  19. On 19 May 2021 the resident told the landlord that the ceiling was being replaced that day and that he’d been told by the contractor to arrange with the landlord for the ceiling to be painted thereafter. The resident was requesting this to be done within five days so that his furniture could be put back in the bedroom. The landlord responded on 20 May 2021 to confirm that a works order for the painting had been raised and that it had asked its contractor to carry it out as a priority. However, it told the resident that there was a backlog of decorating works and that it might not be possible to do it within the requested timescale.
  20. From the evidence provided, it seems that initial decorating was carried out on 28 May 2021 with stain blocking and a mist coat applied to the ceiling. The remainder of the decorating was completed on 3 June 2021.
  21. On 29 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that that a leak has appeared in the same place, that the insulation was wet and water seeping through. He said that his cupboard had become damaged through having to be moved every time and that, if it was not going to repair the leak properly, he wanted to be moved to another property.
  22. Emails were sent internally by the landlord on 30 June 2021 showing that it was asking for the issue to be dealt with as a priority. By 1 July 2021 it had arranged for roofers to attend to carry out an inspection, although they were not due to visit until 6 July 2021.
  23. The report of the inspection on 6 July 2021 noted ongoing water ingress into the bedroom of the resident’s flat. It said that the roof to the entire block was in poor condition and possibly sweating. The required follow on works were detailed as: ‘We will need scaffolding and handrail to rear of 20 and a working platform to front of property, We will need to strip 75sqm of tiles felt and batten above flat 20, Renew felt & batten 75sqm, Allowing 5sqm of new tiles for breakages double Roman tiles, Install 10 x vent tiles double Roman, Strip various layers of weather proofing back to wooden decking to parapet gutter 10sqm, Remove all upstands and flashings 10lm, Renew using pmma liquid system 10sqm, Renew upstands 10lm, Install new lead replacement flashings 10lm, Allow a skip for all rubbish.’ The works order for this was authorised on 9 July 2021.
  24. On 23 July 2021 the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint follow up letter. It asked the resident to accept its sincere apologies that he had continued to experience a leak to his property. It confirmed that the contractor had attended on 6 July 2021 who provided a report stating that the roof was in a poor condition and possibly ‘sweating’ due to a defective membrane within the roof system. A new works order had been raised and that scaffolding was to be erected during the week commencing 26 July 2021. The landlord said that its investigative and repair works would follow once the scaffold had been signed off. It said it was sure that, once the work had been completed, the roof would be sound.
  25. Following on from this, there is an email from the landlord to the resident (the date of which is unclear) which states that they had spoken over the phone and that the resident had been offered £400 compensation. However, the resident had refused this amount for the moment as the repair works were still outstanding. In a second email the landlord said it had asked the Repairs service area to provide an update of what the works entailed and when the leak would be resolved. With regard to compensation, it said it would wait until the issues had been completely resolved before calculating an amount to offer.

Summary of events after the landord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. On 13 August 2021 the landlord provided this service with an update. It said that the scaffolding had been erected on 4 August 2021 and that it was awaiting a start date for the works. It also said that it would be reviewing the compensation offer once all repairs had been satisfactorily completed.
  2. On 9 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to inform him that the works were scheduled to commence on 20 September 2021 and would take a week to complete.
  3. On 1 October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to say that the contractors had finished the repair works but that the roof was still leaking.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reporting of a leak and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
  2. The Ombudsman can only consider events up to point where the landlord has made its formal complaint response, because the landlord has not had the opportunity to formally respond to any later issues. In this case that is the stage 2 follow up response dated 23 July 2021.
  3. Although the source of the leak in October 2020 was initially attributed to a broken tile, that was prior to a full inspection by roofers. When roofers were finally able to inspect the roof, following the erection of scaffolding in February 2021, it found defects to the pitched roof and the PMMA gutter. This description is very similar to the inspection report from February 2020 which stated that a major overhaul was needed to rectify splits in the PMMA.
  4. Although repairs were again carried out to the roof in March 2021, the leak had re-appeared by June 2021. It is clear that the landlord failed to carry out an effective and lasting repair to the roof, both earlier in 2020 and in March 2021. As a result, the resident was significantly impacted and was unable to use one bedroom from at least October 2020.
  5. As well as the impact of the leak itself, the resident suffered stress and inconvenience in having to chase the landlord because he was not being kept informed by it or its main contractor. For example, the stage 1 response said the resident would be contacted by 15 January 2021 with an update. He was not contacted and rang the landlord on 18 January 2021, when he was told that the scaffolding would be erected on 25 January 2021. However, that did not happen and it was not until 4 February 2021 that he was told that the scaffolding was going up on 8 February 2021. The resident was unaware that an inspection had taken place on 17 February 2021 and only found this out upon receiving the stage 2 response on 4 March 2021. There were occasions when the landlord asked its contractor to contact the resident directly but it did not do so. There is no evidence that the contractor contacted the resident in advance of the work being carried out on 9 March 2021, in spite of the landlord’s stage 2 response saying that the contractor had been asked to keep the resident updated. It was not until 18 March 2021 that the contractor emailed the resident to confirm that the roof works had been done. The landlord therefore failed in its promises to keep the resident informed of progress.
  6. There have been issues with some of the landlord’s internal processes and communication. The contractor was often slow to respond to the landlord. For example, the landlord emailed the contractor on 19 March 2021 and had to chase again on 30 March 2021, after which it did receive a response. Given that the resident’s concerns had been given high priority at that point to try and prevent an escalation of his complaint, matters were still not being responded to or chased up in a timely fashion.
  7. There were issues with the complaint handling process itself. Although the resident was contacted five days after the stage 1 response by the BDSO as promised, this was not in any meaningful or genuinely engaging way. He was sent an email but, despite responding immediately and then sending follow up emails, never received a response from the BDSO again. The Ombudsman has seen that the landlord identified this as an issue during the investigation of the resident’s ongoing complaint and that it was highlighted that, due to a lack of case ownership, unallocated cases were falling through a gap with further correspondence not being picked up.
  8. In identifying whether there has been any maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make any findings of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
  9. In this case the landlord has taken steps to improve its complaint handling by identifying shortcomings in its process and raising the issue with relevant staff.
  10. The landlord has also acknowledged and apologised for failing to keep the resident informed and for the leak not yet being resolved. The landlord’s stage 2 response set out a timetable for action to rectify the leak and offered compensation, in line with its own policies and procedures. Overall, looking at the compensation range set out in the landlord’s redress policy, the Ombudsman considers that £400 is a reasonable amount to compensate the resident up to that point.
  11. However, the Ombudsman is conscious of the fact that, although it cannot be looked at it as part of this complaint, the leak returned following the completion of the remedial works promised in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to fully consider these later events and to carry out any necessary inspections and repair work to finally cure the problem, as well as reviewing its compensation offer to the resident once the issue has been resolved.
  12. If the resident remains dissatisfied, he may wish to make a further complaint about events that happened after the landlord’s final stage 2 response in July 2021.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has identified and acknowledged service failings and made an apology and an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of a leak.
  2. However, the issues remain ongoing and the Ombudsman expects the landlord to do all it can to finally resolve the repairs issue and to then review its compensation offer to the resident.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took appropriate steps to try and resolve the leak and it identified and apologised for shortcomings in keeping the resident informed and for the leak still not being resolved. The redress offer of £400 was an appropriate amount to compensate the resident up to the point of the stage 2 complaint response in July 2021.

Orders and recommendations

  1. If the resident agrees, the landlord could make an interim payment of £400 in respect of the compensation already offered.