Tower Hamlets Homes (202204027)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204027

Tower Hamlets Homes

26 September 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak affecting the property.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder. In March 2021, the property was occupied by tenants of the resident. The tenants reported an issue of water ingress from the roof that had caused internal damage. The resident raised a repair with the landlord and an insurance claim with the landlord’s insurer. The insurer advised that it was not able to administer internal repairs until the external roof repairs had been completed. Following this, there were several visits to the property which resulted in the case being closed, as it was determined that it was an internal defect related to the toilet plumbing, which would have been the resident’s responsibility to repair.
3. The case was re-opened due to continued water ingress and during an inspection on 10 December 2021, the contractors determined that there was an issue with the roof and that scaffolding was required to administer the required repairs.
4. The resident raised her formal complaint on 22 February 2022, in which she expressed her concerns that the external work remained outstanding, and that this caused further delay in the insurance company progressing the internal repairs. The scaffolding was erected on 24 February and the work was completed to the roof and guttering on 23 March 2022. The landlord gave its final response on 12 April 2022, in which it confirmed that all outstanding work had been completed. It also confirmed that the required documentation and information would be sent to the insurer to advise of what work had been completed, and what had been the cause of the leak. The landlord offered £20 in recognition of the miscommunication between itself and the insurer, and any inconvenience that may have been caused.
5. The resident was not satisfied with the amount of compensation offered, and informed this Service that she had incurred financial losses of up to £3000 as a result of having an empty property due to the delay in repairs.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

6. Section 5.1.3 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that “repairs that [the landlord] will carry out for [the resident] include repairs to: roofs… drains and gutters”.
7. Section 5.3.1 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that “[The landlord] will undertake repairs to [the resident’s property] where there is a contractual or other legal obligation that [it does] e.g. [the landlord] is responsible for maintaining the structure, common parts and supply of services to each flat”.
8. Section 5.3.2 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that “[The resident] is responsible for all repairs to internal building components (including kitchens) and all services inside the property including pipework and stop valve”.
9. Section 6.5.1 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that normal priority (non-urgent) repairs are to be completed within 20 working days.
10. Section 6.5.1 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy identifies “leaking roofs/minor roof repairs” as “normal priority” repairs.
11. The landlord’s online insurance claim guide states that “[the resident] can make an insurance claim for compensation if they feel they have sustained loss or damage due to negligence by [the landlord or its contractors]”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak affecting the property

12. Following reports of a leak, the landlord raised a job on 11 May 2021 to inspect the property. It was attended to on 17 May 2021 and, according to the landlord’s repair records, a gutter clean and flush was carried out. From the evidence provided, there was no further correspondence regarding the leak until another job was raised on 15 September 2021 regarding further damp in the property. Contractors attended on 24 September 2021 and concluded that the damp was caused by defective plumbing from a toilet, and condensation above a window. No repair was made on this occasion as Section 5.3.2 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that “[The resident] is responsible for all repairs to internal building components (including kitchens) and all services inside the property including pipework and stop valve”.
13. Additionally, section 6.5.1 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that normal priority (non-urgent) repairs are to be completed within twenty working days. As these issues were not classed as urgent repairs, and the leak was deemed ‘containable’, the visits were carried out within the appropriate timeframe according to the landlord’s policies and procedures. It should also be noted that the contractors who had attended had not at that time identified an issue with the roof, and had thought that the source of the issue was the defective plumbing. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its contractors, and therefore not unreasonable for it to have determined the repair as the resident’s responsibility. Whilst the contractor’s identification of the issue in this instance was not correct, the landlord’s response and investigation into the cause was in line with its own policies and procedures.
14. The issue was next raised in December 2021, where the landlord was informed that there was water ingress whenever there was rain. An appointment was raised on 6 December 2021 and was attended on 10 December 2021. It was identified that repairs were required to the roof and guttering, and that scaffolding was required for it to be completed. Section 5.1.3 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that “repairs that [the landlord] will carry out for [the resident] include repairs to: roofs… drains and gutters”.
15. In her formal complaint (22 February 2022), the resident noted that she had been informed that the scaffolding would be erected in the week commencing 21 February 2022, and that the works would be carried out in the week commencing 28 February 2022. The landlord did not dispute that these were the dates given to the resident. The landlord then offered a different date for the repair in its stage one response and advised that its contractors were due to attend in the week commencing 7 March 2022. However, the work was completed on 23 March 2022.
16. Section 6.5.1 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy identifies “leaking roofs/minor roof repairs” as “normal priority” repairs. With this in mind, as stated in section 6.5.1 of the Responsive Repairs Policy, this gave the landlord 20 working days to carry out the repair. As the repair required scaffolding, and the landlord was unable to arrange this promptly, however, this Service would have expected the landlord to have discussed this with the resident to make her aware that it may not be able to achieve the repair within the above timeframe. It appears that there was some conversation regarding the scaffolding as the resident referred to this in her initial complaint, however it is unclear why the scaffolding could not be erected at an earlier time.
17.  Adding to this, the Ombudsman cannot see why the works were delayed until 23 March 2022, given that the scaffolding had been erected a month earlier. This only added to the resident’s inconvenience and frustration. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered the resident several dates prior to this for steps to be taken and despite deadlines passing, offered no explanation to the resident as to why no progress had been made.
18. Keeping the resident updated and informed is a vital aspect of the landlord’s service delivery. Failure to do so is a failure to manage the resident’s expectations, or stick to expectations that had already been set. It is important for the landlord to do this as not sticking to timeframes and expectations can be detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship. The landlord should ensure that it sets deadlines that it can reasonably adhere to, and if it fails to deliver the repairs by the deadlines, it should explain to the resident why the deadline has passed without the work being completed.
19. There were also several occasions where the resident had to request updates on the status of the repair work and to chase responses. For example, the work to the roof was completed on 23 March 2022, but the resident was not informed of this until sometime between 5 and 11 April 2022. This was following multiple requests for an update from both the resident and the insurance company. In failing to update the resident and the insurance company on the completion of the works, the landlord further delayed the resident’s ability to have her insurance claim signed off on, and to have the internal repairs that she required completed. It is important for the landlord to keep the resident informed regarding updates and the progress of repairs relating to her property and complaint. The landlord acknowledged its communication failures and apologised for any inconvenience that it had caused. An offer of £20 was made in recognition of these failures.
20. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation, the compensation fell below what this Service would consider reasonable and was not reflective of the communication issues experienced by the resident. As mentioned, the landlord failed to stick to the deadlines it had given and failed to communicate its reasoning for doing so once these deadlines had been missed. It also failed to respond to the resident and insurance company on several occasions, thus causing unnecessary involvement by the resident in order to confirm the status of the work to her property. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there were “repeated failures to reply to letters or phone calls” and “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses”, payments in the region of £50 to £250 may be appropriate.
21. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord also should have recognised the length of time it had taken to complete the repair, after becoming aware of works required (in December 2021). In the Ombudsman’s view, given that this was considerably longer than its Responsive Repair policy suggests it will take, greater recognition should have been given to this. The Ombudsman appreciates that such repairs can be complex and subsequently take some time, however the landlord should have managed this better and demonstrated to the resident that it was proactively trying to resolve the matter for her. Its delay, coupled with its communication failures resulted in the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking her matter seriously.
22. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there was a service failure and that the landlord’s offer of compensation was insufficient in putting things right. While there was some acknowledgement of its failings, and the landlord did act in accordance with its policy / procedures to some degree, it did not do enough to acknowledge the delay and adverse impact on the resident by the time of its final response.
23. For completeness, the Ombudsman notes that the resident also sought reimbursement for financial losses allegedly incurred due to being unable to rent out the property until the insurance claim had been signed off, and the internal repairs completed. The landlord advised that it did not compensate for the loss of rent in its final response. It also advised the resident to pursue her claim through its insurance company. While the Ombudsman appreciates that this is disappointing for the resident, its approach was in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord’s online insurance claim guide states that “[the resident] can make an insurance claim for compensation if they feel they have sustained loss or damage due to negligence by [the landlord or its contractors]”. It is unclear whether the resident has since raised this concern with the landlord’s insurers.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak affecting the property.

Orders

25. The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £150, in recognition of its collective failures. This is to be actioned within four weeks of the date of this investigation. The compensation can be broken down as:

1. £50 for the landlord’s communication failures including its management of the resident’s expectations.
2. £100 for the delay in undertaking the repair and the inconvenience caused to the resident to chase this matter up (both with the landlord and its insurer).