Town and Country Housing (202205381)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205381

Town and Country Housing

3 November 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 report of a leak that caused damage to her ceiling.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder and lives in a top floor flat. The landlord’s stage one response was issued by the landlord’s contractor on its behalf. For the purpose of clarity, the report will refer to the complaint responses as being the landlord’s.
3. On 11 January 2022, the landlord raised the following repair job: “resident is reporting leak from communal roof…causing issues to the ceiling in top flat. Please inspect”.
4. On 17 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and made a complaint. The landlord noted that the resident had reported a crack in her ceiling, and that “since then plaster has started to come down, water is dripping from somewhere”. It noted that she was dissatisfied with the level of customer service provided by the contractor when making enquiries into the repair issue. She was also dissatisfied that the roofers who had attended the issue that day had been unable to gain access to the roof, despite previously being instructed by the landlord that they would be able to do so. It noted that she had lost income due to having to take a day off work, and was also concerned about the property becoming unsafe. She also requested a copy of the building plans.
5. Following the installation of scaffolding, inspections were made on 25 February 2022. The operators who attended reported “No evidence of a leak anywhere, [the resident] said the joists are soaking wet and is bowing the ceiling, although we couldn’t access the joists the ceiling was as flat as a pancake and bone dry…No issues with roof. Closed job”.
6. A stage one response was issued on 15 March 2022, in which the landlord explained to the resident that it was unable to obtain the plans for the building, as the original contractor had ceased trading. It apologised that it had incorrectly advised the contractor who initially responded to the repair that they would be able to gain access to the roof on that occasion, and for the delay this caused. It confirmed that the contractor who subsequently inspected the issue in February 2022 could not find evidence of a “persistent leak”. It acknowledged that the contractor had supplied it with pictures of a room at the resident’s property, which was different to the one that was affected. Given that the evidence showed a leak had occurred, the landlord decided to refer the matter to its insurer to arrange for a leak detection survey.
7. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She said she was told that the issue would be resolved by 1 April 2022, and explained that if it was not resolved by this date it would prevent a new lodger moving in, which she relied on as a source of income. She also explained that the issue required remedying before she could arrange for the ceiling repairs. She noted that she had originally complained about the poor customer service of the landlord’s contactors, which she said had continued since, and pointed out a number of inaccuracies in the landlord’s response to the complaint, such as dates.
8. A leak detection service subsequently attended the resident’s property to establish the source of the water damage. Having taken moisture readings, it noted that there were no “signs of any raised moisture levels within the property”. It also tested the boiler and domestic water supply and reported no apparent issues in relation to the leak. It concluded that it was unable to determine the cause of the leak and made recommendations of further investigative actions that could be taken. The landlord’s surveyor attended property on 20 April 2022 and reported that the leak was not coming from the smoke shaft. The surveyor reattended on 4 May 2022 and inspected the roof area. It undertook testing to brickwork, and reported “there was no evidence of an active leak on the inspection… however, I do not want to rule anything out which I why I have requested videos/ evidence of when it is leaking.”
9. The landlord issued its final response on 12 May 2022. It apologised for multiple issues, saying that it had “taken longer than initially anticipated to investigate [the] complaint and [was] sorry that trying to identify the source of the leak has caused [the resident] some inconvenience and distress.” It also apologised for errors in its initial response, which it said it had addressed with the previous complaint handler, and for the upset caused to the resident by the customer service approach of its contractor’s staff, and outlined changes it would be making to its repairs service going forward. It also apologised for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request, which it said had been the result of a human error. It explained that despite undertaking extensive investigations, it had been unable to establish the cause of the leak, and that its investigations indicated that there had been no leaking for some time. In light of the resident’s ongoing concerns, it asked her to report any instances of further water ingress going forward, if and when they occurred, or provide video evidence. It offered £100 compensation for inconvenience, its poor customer service, the errors in its stage one response, and the delay in escalating her complaint. It also highlighted that the resident had raised concerns with the cost of repairing and redecorating the damage that was apparent on the ceiling. It said in such circumstances it would usually expect these costs to be met an insurance claim, but, as a gesture of goodwill, it agreed to provide the resident with a decorating pack to carry out the work. It provided her with details with which to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
10. The resident referred her complaint to this Service, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She explained that she did not feel the landlord had taken the matter seriously. She said that although the “leak eventually stopped by itself”, she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter as she said it did not answer her issue about how she was treated by its repairs team. She also said “it took from January to May to get to where I am now (still with damage to ceiling) with still no answer as to why the damage happened.” She also highlighted that she had lost income due to taking to take time work and that she had lost a lodger due to the repair issue.

Assessment and findings

11. The lease sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the premises which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder, including the roof, foundations, joists and external walls.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy defines appointed (routine) repairs as those where any defect can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident or third party, or long-term deterioration of the building and can wait to a mutually convenient appointment time. It gives roof leaks as an example.
13. The landlord has a compensation policy. It outlines that it will not pay compensation for loss of earnings. It states “the amount awarded will depend on the circumstances of the case and is usually for time and trouble…distress and inconvenience experienced by the complainant”.
14. In this case, it is clear the cause of the leak was not identified. However, it was appropriate that the landlord investigated this, due to the possibility that it stemmed from the roof, which is a part of the external structure of the building the landlord is responsible for. It is unclear how the landlord classified the repair, though its policy defines roof leaks as appointed (routine) repairs. Its policy does not give a specific timeframe for routine repairs; however, the common standard amongst social landlords is around 28 days.
15. The landlord initially responded promptly to the resident’s report of the leak, attending within six days. The leak had not reoccurred, although the resident advised that she could hear water dripping “somewhere”. The operatives could not gain access to the roof, which would obviously have been frustrating for the resident, but the visit appears not to have been a wasted one, because from it the need for scaffolding was identified. The scaffolding was subsequently erected and the contractors attended on 25 February 2022, approximately six weeks after the leak had been reported. If the leak had been ongoing, or reoccurring, that timeframe would not generally have been reasonable. However, nothing in the evidence indicates that it had reoccurred, and the inspection found no evidence of a leak from the roof. In the context of there being no clear cause of the leak, or reoccurrence, the time taken was not unreasonable, and the inspection in February allowed the landlord to focus its subsequent investigations.
16. It can sometimes take more than one attempt to resolve repair issues, such as leaks, because it is not always possible to immediately the cause of the problem. In some cases different or multiple investigations may be needed before the cause is ultimately identified or resolved. That is what appears to have happened in this case. The source of the original leak was not identified by the landlord’s initial inspections, and so it undertook further inspections in an effort to either eliminate or identify potential causes. Nothing in the evidence indicates that that was an inappropriate or unreasonable course of action to take.
17. Given the extent of the landlord’s additional investigations in April and May 2022 (which were unable to determine the cause of the leak, and concluded that the leak did not appear to have been persistent or active for some time), it was reasonable that it concluded there were no further actions it could take at the time it issued its final response. It clearly set out its position and reasoning to the resident, and appropriately advised her that it would revisit the issue if she was to report any further incidents of water ingress. The above demonstrates that the landlord was, and remained resolution-focused in its approach.
18. In its initial response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to address the resident’s customer service concerns about its repairs team. That was a failing, as basic complaint handling calls for a complaint response to address (in some form) each of the issues raised in a complaint. Nonetheless, the landlord utilised its stage two complaint to discuss the matter with the resident, and its final response acknowledged her experience. The landlord apologised for the upset caused, and explained that it would be taking its repairs activity temporarily in-house until it arranged a new contract, and “as part of these changes… concentrating on an improved customer service approach [with] staff… receiving training to support this.” This was a reasonable response and shows that the landlord committed to improving this aspect of its service delivery, which is one outcome the Ombudsman expects from a landlord in such circumstances.
19. In discussion of her complaint the landlord noted that it advised the resident that its compensation policy does not account for loss of earnings. This was a reasonable response as it was in line with the landlord’s policy, there was no indication that the leak was caused by the landlord, and the landlord’s actions while searching for potential leak sources were relevant and appropriate. Also, a request for lost earnings would usually require assessment of liability and a claim to the courts. It would be outside the complaint’s procedure and the Ombudsman’s remit. However, it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation for the general inconvenience caused by its services.   
20. The compensation policy provided by the landlord does not offer guidance on different levels of service failure. Nonetheless, the amount it offered was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for instances of service failings which have not significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident, but might have involved distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, or delays in getting matters resolved. Added to this, the landlord exercised its discretion by offering the resident a decoration pack to help with the damage to her ceiling, which was not its obligation to assist with.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

22. The landlord to reiterate its offer of £100 and a decoration pack to the resident (within four weeks of this report) if it has not already done so.