Tower Hamlets Homes (202220118)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220118

Tower Hamlets Homes

27 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. A leak from the roof.
    2. Outstanding repairs.
  2. This report will also assess the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom flat on the 12th floor of a block. He is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property with his family since May 2018. The property is managed on behalf of the landlord by an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO).
  2. On 29 September 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that he had water coming from his kitchen ceiling. The landlord raised a job for a plumber to “trace and remedy” the leak. It is not clear whether the landlord attended the property. However, the records state it had closed the repair. The landlord raised a further job for its plumbing contractor to inspect the cold water storage tanks and stop any leaks from entering the resident’s property.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 October 2022 to say he had “multiple outstanding repairs” that needed addressing. He added that his single point of contact (SPOC) had left the organisation and nobody had contacted him to let him know who would be taking over. He stated that:
    1. One part of his hallway had been plastered but not painted.
    2. The other part of the hallway had asbestos removed but had not been replastered.
    3. The roof still leaked and the landlord had not taken “any conclusive action” to fix the issue.
    4. The previous contractor did not re-seal the bases of the windows and balcony door frame.
    5. It had not re-aligned the living room door.
    6. It had not repaired any of the damage caused during previous plastering works.
  4. The landlord’s plumbing contractor attended on 26 October 2022 but reported that it was unable to gain access to the area where the water tank was located. It reported that the tenant in the top floor flat had not been at home at the time. On 19 November 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He stated that:
    1. He had multiple outstanding repairs as a result of “repeated roof leaks” earlier that year.
    2. While the landlord had made some progress, this had stopped.
    3. He had sent an email on 18 October 2022 to ask for an update on the remaining repairs but had no response. He followed this up on 31 October 2022 but the landlord ignored this too.
    4. The roof still leaked and he was “not confident” the landlord “was prepared to invest the required resources to fix the issue”.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 November 2022. On 25 November 2022, the plumbing contractor visited again and confirmed that the water tank was not overfilling and therefore not the source of the leak. The landlord raised a new order for its general build contractor to attend both the resident’s property and the flat above to locate the source of the water ingress. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 2 December 2022. In this it stated that:
    1. Its general build contractor had been booked to attend the resident’s property on 19 December 2022.
    2. It wanted to apologise for its poor communication regarding the repairs and for the contractor’s lack of action following the initial inspection.
    3. As a result of his complaint, its staff and contractors had been reminded of the importance of “providing clear, speedy, accurate and up-to-date information to residents, as well as timely follow-ups”.
    4. The repair issue remained outstanding and its investigations were ongoing.
    5. It would continue to monitor and progress its “proposed next steps and follow-on actions” until the resident was satisfied with the outcome.
    6. Depending on the feedback from its plumber, it would log and progress any further works “without delay”.
  6. The resident responded on 3 December 2022 to escalate his complaint. He stated that:
    1. Its response lacked “the depth of understanding of the issue”, and did not address the other repairs he had referred to in his complaint.
    2. He was disappointed the landlord did not call him to discuss the issues before sending its stage 1 response.
    3. There had been more than 5 instances in the previous 4 years where water had leaked into the property during heavy rain.
    4. The patch up repairs the landlord had done to the roof had not resolved the issue and the landlord seemed unwilling to investigate further.
    5. He had mentioned a number of repairs in his email of 18 October 2022. He had been “ignored multiple times” and the landlord failed to address them in its complaint response.
  7. The general build contractor attended the property on 19 December 2022 and recorded that it could not gain access. It rescheduled the appointment for 22 December 2022. It is not clear from the records whether this visit went ahead. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 12 December 2022. It contacted him again on 9 January 2023 to tell him who would be investigating. It then sent him a holding reply on 18 and 23 January 2023 to advise him that it needed more time to investigate and that it would extend the response date to 31 January 2023.
  8. A contractor inspected the roof on 20 February 2023 and reported that there was ongoing water ingress into the resident’s property. It was noted that this only happened during heavy, persistent rain. It stated that:
    1. There was a possible issue with the “roof covering and drainage system”.
    2. It was restricted in how far it could repair the roof due to the amount of telecommunication cabling above the resident’s property.
    3. It could only carry out “holding repairs” using a liquid membrane.
    4. The resident had asked whether the landlord could carry out an independent roof survey.
  9. On 23 February 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It stated that:
    1. Following an inspection on 20 February 2023, its contractor had advised that it would need to install a liquid membrane on the roof. This would be located under the telecommunications unit. It added that it would keep the resident updated on progress.
    2. Its contractor was waiting for its subcontractor to update it on the balcony door repair. It had reminded staff to ensure this was being progressed to completion.
    3. It had completed the repair to the resident’s window on 3 February 2023.
    4. It had raised a work order to decorate the hallway and its contractor would contact him to book an appointment.
    5. It had also raised a work order to inspect the damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom and its inspector would contact him on 7 March 2023.
  10. In March and June 2023, the landlord completed the following repairs:
    1. From 13 to 17 March 2023 it completed plastering and redecoration works to the resident’s hallway.
    2. On 15 March 2003 it repaired the resident’s balcony door.
    3. On 21 March 2023 the contractor applied a liquid membrane to an area of the roof above the resident’s property. However, on 31 March 2023, the resident reported that the leak was still ongoing.
    4. On 1 June 2023, it carried out a 3 stage mould treatment to affected areas in the resident’s bedroom walls and ceiling.
  11. On 23 May 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint for the following reasons:
    1. The landlord had not “properly addressed” the issue with the roof.
    2. It was only placing liquid membrane over the area directly above his property but not the whole roof.
    3. It was reluctant to carry out certain roof repairs because of the presence of telecommunications equipment.
    4. The landlord had not addressed its “communication failures” in its response.
    5. There were multiple follow on works that remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Policy and legal framework

  1. In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes entrances, halls, staircases and roofs. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy lists 2 main categories of repair, depending on the urgency of the work. It states that each category “has a target time limit to complete the job”. The landlord completes emergency repairs within 24 hours (2 hour response to “make safe”, with completion of works carried out within 24 hours). It completes repairs it refers to as “normal priority/routine” within 20 working days. It states that, in most cases, it will complete routine repairs “well in advance of” this. However, should a pre-inspection be required, the timescale to carry this out is not included within the 20 day target. Where a pre-inspection is required, an appointment will be agreed with the resident when the repair is reported.
  4. The policy states that there will be some situations where works identified as a result of a responsive repair request are extensive and not appropriate to undertake as an unplanned responsive repair. Where such repairs are due to be covered by an imminent cyclical or planned maintenance programme, the resident will be informed of this and the repair postponed until that date.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage formal complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 48 hours of receipt. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and may extend the timescale by a further 10 working days with the agreement of the resident. The landlord generally responds to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In more complex cases, it may need to extend this by a further 10 working days. The policy also has an “informal” stage where the landlord will try and resolve a complaint informally within 5 working days. It will automatically log a formal complaint if it fails to resolve the complaint informally.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy states that, where appropriate, a resident should be compensated for time and trouble taken in having to pursue their complaint. This would normally fall within the range of between £25 and £250. It also states that compensation may be considered for distress and inconvenience. The levels of compensation will be determined by the particular facts of the case, such as the amount of time the resident has had to wait for a decision and the nature of the injustice. Redress may range from £200 to £1,000.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated that he has been reporting leaks from the roof to the landlord for around 4 years. We do not dispute his comments in relation to this. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from the end of September 2022 onwards. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint. Any references to events prior to this are made to provide context.
  2. The resident has also raised an issue with regard to the way the landlord handled works to remove asbestos from his property. As this did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord that was under consideration, the Service cannot investigate the matter at this stage. This is because, in the interest of fairness, the landlord needs to first be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. It is understood the resident has raised this with the landlord as a separate complaint. In the event that the resident exhausts the landlord’s complaints procedure and remains unhappy, he may refer the matter back to us as a new complaint.

A leak from the roof

  1. The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident has experienced distress over a lengthy period of time, while reporting leaks into his property. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been for the household while living with the impacts from this. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This assessment will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
  2. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timescale for carrying out inspections. Furthermore, it’s policy states that pre-inspections are not included within the 20 day target for routine repairs. However, there is an expectation that landlords provide residents with a reasonable estimate as to when they plan to carry out a pre-inspection, and to then carry this out within a reasonable amount of time.
  4. The evidence shows that, from when the resident reported the leak to when the contractor carried out the roof repair, the landlord took a total of 121 working days. According to the records, the first time it had visited the property to check for the source of the leak was 25 November 2022. This was 42 working days following the resident’s initial report. However, it is noted that the landlord did attempt to inspect the cold water storage tank on 26 October 2022, but was unable to access the loft. This was because the tenant who lived in the property above was unavailable at the time to provide access to the area. It is unclear why it took the landlord a further month to arrange for its contractor to re-schedule the inspection. It has provided no reason as to why it could not have done so earlier. As such, the evidence suggests that the delay here could reasonably have been avoided.
  5. Once the plumber had eliminated the cause of the leak as an overfilling water tank, the records show that it was a further 59 working days before the landlord’s roofing contractor to carried out an inspection on 20 February 2023. There is no evidence of attempts by the landlord to re-schedule appointments with the contractor. Furthermore, there are no records to show that the contractor was proactively liaising with the resident or neighbouring tenant to access the loft or check the roof in a timely manner. This demonstrated a lack of urgency by the landlord to locate and resolve the leak. The slow response would have caused the resident avoidable frustration and uncertainty over when the landlord would fulfil its repair obligations. Meanwhile the resident was left to suffer from the effects of the ongoing leak for longer than necessary.
  6. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report in September 2022 or his subsequent contact between October and November 2022.It was only when he raised a stage 1 complaint that the landlord provided an update. That it took the landlord 6 weeks to carry out an initial inspection, and around a further 9 weeks to inspect the roof,demonstrates a significant failure in its repair tracking system, and its contract monitoring. Furthermore, that it took the landlord around 4 months to raise a repair following the resident’s initial report demonstrates excessively protracted repair management.
  7. The delays caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience in having to repeatedly prompt the landlord to meet its repair obligations. The landlord had been put on notice of the outstanding repair and it was inappropriate that it failed to inspect the areas or start the process of completing repairs at an earlier stage. This was despite the resident chasing the landlord through October and November 2022. The evidence suggests that the landlord only took action after being prompted by the resident raising his complaint. It should not have taken the resident complaining to compel it to progress the repair. This was a failing.
  8. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that its contractor had attended on 20 February 2023 to carry out a roof inspection. As the landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports, it is unclear what findings or recommendations the contractors made following its visit to the site. Furthermore, there is no indication the landlord had considered undertaking an assessment of the risks posed by the leaks both to the resident and his property.
  9. Given the history of roof leaks, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have arranged a timelier and more comprehensive roof survey, and kept a record of it. It would also have been reasonable for it to have completed a risk assessment. That the landlord has failed to demonstrate it had taken these measures meant it was unable to establish the full extent of the work that was required.
  10. It is noted that, following the repair on 21 March 2023, the resident reported on 31 March 2023 that the leak was still ongoing. The evidence shows that the repairs to the roof were limited by the presence of a telecommunications unit and cabling within the loft area. The records show that the contractor had advised the landlord that the only option available was to carry out a temporary repair using a liquid membrane. The temporary repair was appropriate in the circumstances. However, once the resident reported later that the leak was persisting only 10 days later, the landlord’s investigations should reasonably have resumed. This should have entailed finding a long-term/permanent solution. That it did not do so was a failing.
  11. The resident told the Service on 25 September 2024 that “multiple roofers” had told him that the roof was “at the end of its life” and that it needed a “full overhaul” under the landlord’s major works programme. While the resident’s comments about the conversations that took place are noted, we have seen no other evidence that a recommendation to replace the roof was made. It would be appropriate for the landlord to consider this in the event that repairs are unsuccessful.
  12. There is internal correspondence from 25 January 2023 stating that the resident had told the landlord4 other flats were reporting leaks from the roof. It mentioned the resident’s request for an independent survey and queried whether this was possible. There is no indication it had given any further consideration to arranging an independent roof survey.
  13. It is appreciated that landlords and their contractors are sometimes limited in their ability to carry out certain works. It is also acknowledged that there are also budgetary constraints when it comes to major works like roof replacements. However, given the length of time the resident had been reporting leaks, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have considered commissioning an independent roof survey. That it had not appropriately explored other options meant the landlord could not demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to resolve the ongoing leak.
  14. The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward and can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. Where a process of elimination is required, we would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented. As mentioned above, the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had taken appropriate and timely action to find the cause of the leak and to then complete a repair. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord carries out a further inspection and puts an action plan together showing how it plans to resolve the water ingress going forward.
  15. Prior to issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord has been unable to evidence that it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with updates, estimated completion dates or to keep him regularly informed. This demonstrates poor communication between the landlord and its contractor, and a failure to properly manage the resident’s expectations. Records show the resident had to make significant efforts to try and progress the outstanding roof repair, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord could not have completed the work sooner. It has not provided any records to explain the reasons for the delays, which is evidence of poor record keeping. In addition, it failed to provide any reasonable explanation for those delays in its complaint responses, which demonstrates a lack of transparency.
  16. The evidence shows there were instances when contractors were unable to gain access to the property, for example when it attended the property on 19 December 2022. There is also evidence the resident had cancelled appointments and that on occasions the contractor was unable to make contact with him. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, one of his responsibilities asa tenant is to provide the landlord and its contractors with reasonable access to the property, to enable it to meet its repairs obligations.
  17. The Ombudsman accepts there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, delays to repairs being resolved because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot be considered to be within the landlord’s control. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would have been unable to carry out required works in a timely manner.
  18. However, the landlord has provided very few contemporaneous records from before March 2023 to evidence that it had given the resident prior notice of appointments. Its poor record keeping means it has not been able to demonstrate efforts it had made to contact the resident or keep him updated. The resident reported that the landlord had not made him aware of some of the appointments, which would explain why he may not have been available when operatives arrived. This would have exacerbated the delays and caused the resident avoidable inconvenience.
  19. The Service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractors. However, its lack of any effective repair management meant that it failed to proactively chase and monitor its contractors before and during the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, there are no records to show the landlord had appointed a SPOC until after it had issued its stage 2 response. The failure to do so would have contributed to its overall failure in responding to the resident’s reports of water ingress, and the subsequent excessive delays in completing the necessary works. The landlord’s failure to respond reasonably to the resident’s reports of a leak and to properly follow its repairs policy amounts to maladministration.
  20. It is noted that, following the works to the roof, the landlord acted appropriately by completing a 3 stage mould treatment to affected areas in the resident’s bedroom walls and ceiling. The records show that the landlord raised this job on 27 April 2023 and completed it on 1 June 2023, which means it took it 29 working days to complete the work. Although this was outside its 20 working days timescale, the delay was caused by a requirement to first remove some asbestos from the property. That there was a delay was therefore beyond the landlord’s control.

Outstanding repairs

  1. The evidence shows that the resident had several outstanding repairs, which he had chased up on 18 October 2022. Despite this, there is no indication the landlord responded or provided any updates, and it did not mention those outstanding repairs in its stage 1 response. It was only after the resident had escalated his complaint that the landlord raised work orders to complete those repairs. This is a further demonstration of poor repair management, lack of communication and inadequate contract monitoring by the landlord.
  2. Within the records the landlord provided, there are discrepancies around when some repairs were completed. While the landlord’s repair logs state the repairs were completed on a certain date, other internal documents state that those same repairs were carried out either later or earlier. For example, although the repair log lists the work to reseal windows as having been completed on 3 February 2023, an internal update states this was attended to on 13 March 2023. This similarly applies to other repairs, which is further evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord.
  3. Although the repair logs show that most of the repairs were completed within the 20 working days timescale from being raised, the resident had reported the issues several months prior. The records show that it took the landlord from 3 to 4 months after the resident prompted it on 18 October 2022 to raise the outstanding repairs. This was a failing and a significant departure from its repairs policy.
  4. It is noted that it took the landlord 46 working days to complete a repair to the resident’s balcony door from the date the repair was raised, on 11 January 2023. Although the repair log shows that the contractor had sent updates to the resident via text message during this period, it has not provided any explanation for the delay, or why the work was completed outside the landlord’s timescale. Furthermore, there are no records of any correspondence from the landlord apologising for the delay or providing any reasons or reassurances. This indicates a lack of customer focus and poor contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors complete repairs in line with its repairs policy. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to complete repairs within a reasonable time or to communicate appropriately with the resident.
  5. It is noted that following conclusion of the complaints process, the landlord’s communication improved significantly. Following the resident’s complaint, there is also evidence in the landlord’s repair logs that the contractor had sent the resident regular updates via text message. Furthermore, the records show that from March 2023 onwards the landlord acted appropriately in ensuring the resident’s single point of contact (SPOC) was in regular contact with the resident. However, it should not have taken the resident to escalate his complaint before the landlord met its repair obligations and took reasonable action to improve its communication. That it failed to complete repairs within a reasonable amount of time or to communicate adequately prior to and during the complaints process amounts to maladministration.

Putting things right

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  2. In its stage 2 response, the landlord failed to properly acknowledge or apologise for the delays in completing outstanding repairs and for its poor communication. It did not demonstrate any learning from the resident’s complaint or provide details of any changes or improvements it had considered in light of its failings. Furthermore, it failed to address most of the repairs in its stage 1 response, or offer any compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and lack of communication. The landlord’s response shows little effort by the landlord to put things right and falls significantly short of fully recognising the impact on the resident and his family. The landlord failed to properly recognise that the resident and his family were left to live in a property that suffered from the impacts of water ingress and outstanding repairs for longer than was necessary. It will therefore be necessary for the Ombudsman to order that the landlord pay compensation to put things right.
  3. The resident has paid approximately £560 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period the repairs were outstanding. The Ombudsman can reasonably consider this to have started in late September/ early October 2022, which was when the resident first reported a leak from the roof, and chased up several outstanding repairs. It is also the start of the period on which this investigation focused. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time the landlord took to attend to the repairs (6 months). It also takes into account the impact of the resulting damp on the resident’s enjoyment of the property.
  4. Factoring in the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £504 compensation in respect of loss of enjoyment. This figure has been calculated as approximately 15% of the total rent during the period in question, given the repairs that were outstanding. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. The Ombudsman will order additional compensation in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint

  1. The landlord took 56 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Although it sent the resident holding letters, on 18 and 23 January 2023 with a revised response date of 31 January 2023, it failed to send them in a timely manner. For example, it sent the resident its first holding reply 30 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. Given the landlord’s timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints is 20 working days, it should have advised the resident of the delay before this period had elapsed.
  2. Furthermore,  although it gave a revised response date of 31 January 2023, the landlord did not issue its response until 23 February 2023, nearly a month later. It failed to notify the resident of any that there would be further delays or agree any revised timescales after 31 January. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 2 response, or offer an apology or any compensation. It is evident the landlord did not make reasonable efforts to respond in a timely manner or to keep the resident adequately informed, which was a departure from its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. As set out above, the landlord also failed to make any offers of redress with a view to putting things right. We have therefore found maladministration overall in its complaint handling.

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates”. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
  2. The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents.  Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
  3. The landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports and its repair log is unclear as to when its contractor completed repairs. This is because there is internal correspondence that gives different completion dates to those recorded in the repair logs. Contemporaneous records of telephone calls and written correspondence between the landlord and resident before and during the complaints process were also very limited. The landlord provided limited records of correspondence with its contractor during the period when the resident was waiting for repairs to be completed.
  4. The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s poor repairs management. It would also explain its failure in putting together a coherent plan to identify the cause of the leak and complete the required outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in line with the Service’s Remedies Guidance.
    2. Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £904, which is calculated as follows:
      1. £504 in recognition of the loss of amenity while the roof repair and other repairs were outstanding.
      2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this case.
      3. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  2. The resident has said that, following the works completed on 31 March 2023, his property continues to experience water ingress and that there are still some repairs that remain outstanding. As such, the landlord is to contact the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to provide a schedule for when it will carry out any outstanding works. It should advise how it plans to resolve the ongoing roof leak. If the resident is not satisfied with how any further works are carried out, he may then submit a further complaint to the landlord, and then approach the Ombudsman again if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
  3. This investigation has identified a number of issues relating to the liaison between the landlord and its own contractor. The landlord may have since addressed these matters with the contractor through its contract management processes. If so, the landlord is asked to provide confirmation to the Ombudsman, within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, that the issues have been addressed and robust contract monitoring arrangements are in place with this contractor. If the landlord is yet to raise these issues with this contractor, it should now do so and provide confirmation to the Ombudsman of the actions taken within 8 weeks, as above.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its complaint training to ensure that, when holding letters are sent out, they are issued before the end of the 10 or 20 working days respectively, to ensure reasonable notice of delays. In addition, the training should emphasise the importance of contacting residents whenever delays to responses are expected, and to agree revised timescales wherever appropriate.