Wandsworth Council (202218821)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218821

Wandsworth Council

26 September 2023

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:
   1. repairs to address water penetration from the roof;
   2. a compensation request for rental income loss due to incomplete roof repairs, and;
   3. the complaint made.

Background

2. The leaseholder has owned his first floor flat since 1998. The landlord is the freeholder.
3. On 3 November 2021, the leaseholder contacted the landlord to report a leak from the roof into his kitchen and a crack in the chimney. A section 20 consultation notice (section 20) was needed as the works would cost each property over £250. At the end of January 2022, the landlord served the section 20 to the affected properties. The affected residents dispensed with their right to the formal consultation period to attempt to speed up the repair to the roof. The repair was signed off as complete on 3 August 2022.
4. The resident brought a complaint to the landlord concerning the length of time to complete the repair and his frustration at not being able to rent the property out.
5. Through the early complaint resolution, the landlord identified it was slow to issue the section 20 and offered to reduce its management charge for the works from 25% to 5.05% which amounted to a reduction of £400.35.  At stage 1 of the complaint process the landlord acknowledged delays with it issuing the section 20 and its contractor’s broken appointments and offered £75. In its stage 2 response the landlord increased this by a further £50 as the scaffolding remained in place longer than necessary. The package was worth a total of £525.35.
6. The leaseholder was dissatisfied with the final complaint response and brought his complaint to this service. As a resolution the leaseholder would like £5,000 for the cost of the repairs and £2,500 as compensation.

Assessment and findings

7. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
   1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
   2. put things right, and;
   3. learn from outcomes.
8. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the leaseholder. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Repairs to address water penetration from the roof.

9. Under both Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the lease agreement the landlord has responsibility for repairing and maintaining the structure of the property, including roof. The landlord’s complaints policy states where service delivery does not meet expectations, it uses this service’s remedies guidance to calculate compensation for leaseholders.
10. The landlord issued the section 20, 3 months after the initial repair request, 2 months later the scaffolding was erected, and then the works were signed off as completed 4 months after this. This service has seen no evidence of the landlord’s service standards which makes it difficult to determine whether the landlord fulfilled its obligations. There was evidence supplied to illustrate the scaffolding had a target date of 1 month after the order was raised. After the leaseholder chased the landlord, the scaffolding was erected a month after the target date. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to manage and progress the section 20 and repairs in a timely manner without the leaseholder’s prompting. This was an unreasonable and an avoidable delay.
11. Through the leaseholder’s early complaint resolution, the landlord recognised its failings, citing delays with it issuing the section 20, and with its contractor. It offered a reduced management fee which compensated the leaseholder for the delays experienced up to March 2022. The leaseholder progressed his complaint as he experienced further delays until the repairs were signed off in August 2022. The landlord acknowledged this and identified the contractor as responsible for them. It acknowledged the delays, the broken appointments, and distress caused, and upheld the leaseholder’s complaint.
12. Although £400.35 which is the majority of the compensation, was offered before additional delays were experienced, the landlord’s total offer of £525.35 has exceeded the compensation this service would expect it to offer in line with the remedies guidance. This service finds the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress to the leaseholder for the delays experienced.

Compensation request for rental income loss due to incomplete roof repairs.

13. The lease agreement does not give the landlord any responsibility or obligation to compensate the leaseholder for rental loss.
14. The leaseholder advised he lost rental income as the property was not habitable due to the outstanding repairs. The landlord’s Building Maintenance Inspector considered that the extent of the damp patch was limited to a section of the chimney breast and that the leaseholder could have minimised their loss by re-letting the property during the period. This service has not been provided with evidence to confirm that the outstanding repairs were significant enough to prevent the leaseholder from letting the property.
15. The landlord appropriately addressed this in its complaint response and advised the leaseholder to make an insurance claim on its policy if he believed it was negligent. It also referred the leaseholder to his own landlord insurance, should he hold it, as another route to claim for any rental loss. Insurance policies provide cover for parties whilst protecting the landlord’s financial position by paying compensation claims as opposed to this coming from the landlord’s finances. When the leaseholder raised the complaint and sought compensation it was reasonable for the landlord to recommend a resolution through an insurance scheme to protect its financial resources.
16. This service finds there was no maladministration by the landlord in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme.

The complaint handling.

17. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) lists the expectations of a landlord when handling complaints. The code and the landlord’s complaint policy acknowledge the difference between service requests and complaints, it also acknowledges that chasers regarding service requests can often be resolved quickly.
18. The code states that a complaint must be acknowledged within 5 working days and responses provided to stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20. The landlord’s complaint policy does not comply with this. In its complaint handling policy, the landlord states it will acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 within 25.
19. Initially, the landlord chose to deal with the leaseholder’s complaint as a service request. This service finds its response was timely, thorough, and it progressed the query. It offered to compensate the leaseholder by reducing the management fee. In June 2022, the leaseholder contacted the landlord again to raise a complaint. The landlord treated this as another service request, however it appropriately complied when the leaseholder said he specifically wanted a complaint opening.
20. Once the landlord accepted the complaint it complied with its timescales, provided detailed responses, and highlighted learning for its service.
21. This service finds there was no maladministration by the landlord but will recommend it aligns its policy with the code.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, this service finds reasonable redress was offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the repairs to address water penetration from the roof.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, this service finds there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of a compensation request for rental income loss due to incomplete roof repairs.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, this service finds there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the complaint made.

Recommendations

25. The landlord should reoffer the leaseholder the compensation package if this has not been accepted.
26. The landlord identified problems evidencing some inspection reports due to turnover of staff. It is recommended the landlord reviews this service’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report to ensure adequate records are maintained.
27. It is recommended the landlord reviews this service’s code to ensure its complaints policy and processes are compliant with it.