Watford Community Housing Trust (202432882)

Background

1. The resident lives in the top floor flat with her children in a block comprised of similar properties. She has raised concerns about water ingress into her property from the roof above.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A roof leak.
   2. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof leak.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the management transfer.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The roof leak

5. The landlord demonstrated that it was investigating the issues with the roof leak through its contractors. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its appropriately qualified contractors at each visit. However, the overall length of time taken to complete repairs to the roof was unreasonable and we recognise the resident’s frustrations with the number of visits, the length of time taken, and the recurring nature of the water ingress. The resident has said she is still experiencing issues in the property, despite the landlord’s attempts to complete repairs.

The management transfer

6. The landlord recognised the impact the roof leak was having on the resident and her family. It approved her request for a management transfer and reasonably set her expectations about the length of time it may take to find a suitable property through its transfer procedure. The landlord has demonstrated that it has offered the resident alternative accommodation. It also provided her with wider rehousing advice and made a number of property offers to her. There were no failures in how the landlord handled this request.

The complaints handling

7. The landlord missed an earlier opportunity in 2023 to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. This delayed the landlord’s ability to fully investigate her complaint at that time and led to a restart of the complaints procedure in 2024. This also slowed down her ability to refer her complaint to this service.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the leak from October 2022. This was when it was first notified of a possible problem with the roof. It will consider its overall handling of the repairs up to completion.
9. The resident appears to have raised 2 separate complaints about the roof leak. 1 of these complaints was raised at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure which it responded to on 20 April 2023. However, there is no evidence that this complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure at that time. We will consider the detail of both stage 1 complaints and its final stage 2 complaint response.
10. The resident told us that the condition of the property, due to the leaks, negatively impacted her children’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any stated impact to health. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury or impact to health. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete repairs within 20 working days of the initial report. The policy also says that some repairs, including roofing repairs, may require a pre-inspection to determine the necessary actions. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof.
12. The resident reported a leak on 25 October 2022. The landlord instructed its contractor to investigate the roof of the block. Shortly after starting inspections, the contractor went into administration, which caused delays. This was outside the landlord’s control. Once aware, the landlord arranged for an alternative contractor to check the roof. In the circumstances, this was an appropriate response.
13. When the resident raised her concerns about the length of time it was taking to complete any repairs in April 2023 the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint. In its response, the landlord explained that works were due to start on 24 April 2023 and should last about 3 days. It was positive the landlord communicated its intention and explained that it would complete redecoration works of any damaged areas once the roof works had been completed.
14. After this, the resident remained in regular contact with the landlord. She reported damp patches on another part of her ceiling. The landlord sent its contractor to check the roof again. In June 2023, the contractor told the landlord it had not identified any new leaks on the roof, but had scheduled some works to the coping stones on the roof to rule out any other potential issues.
15. On 7 December 2023 the resident reported a new leak. The landlord’s contractor attended the following day and said it found no evidence of a leak but noted a dripping sound from a water outlet near the window. The contractor said no further action was taken and it told the landlord about its findings. It was positive the landlord responded to this promptly given the history of concerns.
16. Around March 2024 the resident gave birth. At around the same time she told the landlord she had noticed more damp marks on the ceiling. The landlord quickly arranged a contractor to visit who identified moisture on the resident’s ceiling but no evident issue on the roof. The contractor appears to have cut a hole into the resident’s ceiling to identify any other issues. This would have been disruptive, especially with a newborn, but it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out further inspections to identify the cause. Roof leaks can be complex and may require multiple inspections and repairs.
17. In its response to the resident’s second stage 1 complaint, the landlord said it was working with contractors to resolve the roof and ceiling issues. It explained it was checking the space between the ceiling and the roof. It said if works were identified it would complete them by May 2024.The landlord kept in contact and said internal works would follow on from the roof repairs.
18. On 23 September 2024 the resident told the landlord that water was affecting an electrical socket in her home. In response, the landlord logged an emergency repair which it attended to. It was unclear what happened during this initial call out as the landlord appeared to log a new electrical job on 26 September 2024 to isolate the socket. This was a couple of days after the initial report.
19. In an email to the resident, the landlord told her to not use the socket until its operatives attended. Whilst this was sound advice, it remains concerning that the resident was left with a potentially hazardous socket, particularly given that its electricians had already attended and its responsive repairs policy says that any emergency repairs will be made safe within 24 hours of the initial report. This was a failure and it would have been understandably distressing for the resident, especially given she had young children in the property.
20. The issue with the socket prompted the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She referred to the history of issues and explained the problems with the roof have been ongoing for around 2 years. She said operatives were visiting the flat on the day she gave birth.
21. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said further investigations had taken place, a temporary was completed on 1 October 2024, and a full repair was planned by 25 October 2024. It said redecoration would follow 2 weeks later. It offered £250 for the impact of the situation.
22. The landlord also acknowledged damage to the resident’s personal items and offered a further £250. It later agreed to pay an additional £52.99 for a damaged rug. Although it may not have been under any obligation to pay this, as claims for damaged items are usually handled through a liability insurer, it was appropriate for the landlord to make this offer for the resident’s damaged items. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
23. We note the landlord offered the resident £450 in 2023, outside of its complaints procedure, for damage to her bed. The resident accepted this amount at the time. It was positive the landlord offered this compensation after it had inspected the damage.
24. Shortly after the stage 2 complaint response, the leak appears to have returned. The resident has also said she recently noticed more damp patches have returned to the ceiling. This shows a permanent repair has not been achieved despite various investigations and repairs. We understand why the resident is frustrated and feels nothing meaningful has been done.
25. We acknowledge the landlord and its contractors have attempted various repairs over the years, and completed internal repairs to the resident’s flat. It remains positive that the landlord has responded to her reports and continues to do so. However the absence of a permanent and lasting repair remains concerning. The resident should have not been left in a situation for over 3 years with a leaking roof.
26. For these reasons, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof leak.
27. In considering what steps the landlord should take to put things right, we consider our remedies guidance. Whilst it was positive the landlord recognised the impact the situation had on the resident by offering her £250, this amount was not entirely reflective of the impact the situation had on the resident up to its stage 2 complaint response.
28. In addition to this, a lasting repair has not been achieved and the resident has said she continues to be impacted by issues with the roof. We have seen evidence which shows the landlord was still arranging repairs to the roof in early 2025. The resident has told this service that she continues to report issues with water marks to the ceiling.
29. Our remedies guidance says that where there was a failure affecting the resident and some attempt to put things right, but the compensation offered was not proportionate, then £100-£600 may be appropriate. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay an additional £350 in recognition of the prolonged impact and the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is also representative of the delays to complete any lasting repair since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
30. The landlord is also ordered to commission an independent survey of the roof and the resident’s ceiling. The purpose of the survey is to identify any current or ongoing issues with water ingress from the roof into the ceiling. The survey should determine the likely cause of the problem and include a plan for completing any necessary permanent repairs. An independent survey provides impartial findings and ensures that any recommendations are not influenced by previous assessments commissioned by the landlord.

31. Due to the issues with the water ingress from the roof and the impact this was having in the resident’s household, she requested the landlord transferred her to a different property.
32. The landlord’s access to housing policy provides specific details about its approach to handling managed transfer requests. It says it may approve requests for managed transfers where there is, but not limited to, a threat to a person’s safety or wellbeing.
33. On 14 July 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it had approved her request for a managed move. This followed an earlier offer it appeared to make in 2023. The landlord explained it may take some time for a suitable property to become available. It was positive that the landlord recognised her request to transfer to an alternative home and approved her case. It was also reasonable that the landlord explained it may take time for a suitable offer to be made.
34. We have seen evidence which shows the landlord has offered the resident alternative properties to date. The landlord has said the resident has declined these offers. Whilst we understand the resident has reasons for declining the landlord’s offers of alternative accommodation, it has demonstrated that it has acted fairly and appropriately by making these offers.
35. As the landlord followed its policy, agreed to transfer the resident, and made offers of alternative accommodation, there was no maladministration in its handling of the request for a managed transfer.
36. We would not order the landlord to move a resident to a new home as an outcome to our investigations. This is because we do not have access to the information in any given area or those households that may have a more urgent need to move, such as those fleeing serious domestic abuse, antisocial behaviour, or experiencing homelessness.
37. However, we do recommend the landlord keeps in contact with the resident about any future offers through its managed transfer procedure. We also recommend it considers whether temporary accommodation may be required when it completes any future repairs to the roof, to minimise disruption to the resident in her home.

38. The landlord’s complaints handling procedure, at the time of the resident’s complaint, defined a complaint as an “expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord.” It also says it responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 15 working days.
39. The evidence shows that the resident raised her first stage 1 complaint on 5 April 2023 which the landlord responded to on 20 April 2023. This was in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and was appropriate.
40. From this point, the resident continued to experience issues relating to the roof leak. She was in regular contact with the landlord and continued to report further issues about the roof. She also regularly expressed her dissatisfaction about the situation and told the landlord about potential damage caused to her bed.
41. Although the resident did not appear to specifically ask for a stage 2 complaint, the landlord missed an opportunity to identify the continued issues as an opportunity to move her complaint to stage 2 at that time. She also told the landlord she was pregnant and the situation of the roof leak was causing her stress, as previously mentioned. This was a failure.
42. The resident then raised a separate stage 1 complaint with the landlord, about the same issues, on 25 March 2024. The landlord responded to this on 10 April 2024. This was slightly outside of the timescales set out in its complaint policy. However this delay was minor and did not appear to affect the outcome to the stage 1 complaint.
43. The resident asked to escalate this complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 25 September 2024 which the landlord responded to on 18 October 2024. This was again slightly outside of the landlord’s timescales for a stage 2 complaint response, but again this did not appear to affect the overall outcome.
44. Although the overall delays were minor, the landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure earlier on in the timeline, and especially given the resident had already received a stage 1 complaint response. This delayed the landlord’s formal investigations and slowed down the resident’s ability to refer her complaint to us. For this reason, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
45. In deciding what the landlord should now do to put things right, we consider our own remedies guidance, available on our website. This says that where we have found service failure which the landlord did not acknowledge but there was no permanent impact to the resident, then £50-£100 may be an appropriate amount of compensation. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £100 for the failure identified in its complaints handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. The landlord’s records were sufficiently detailed for us to  complete the investigation. There were some gaps in its records around what happened during individual repair visits which made it difficult to establish specific details or what the outcomes were to certain repairs. There is an opportunity for the landlord to consider that its records are capturing repair outcomes effectively, especially where various contractors are used.

Communication

47. The landlord maintained regular communication with the resident throughout the issues and her complaints. However it missed an opportunity to progress her stage 1 complaint when she continued to express her dissatisfaction. There is a learning opportunity for the landlord to consider more timely escalations of stage 1 complaints to stage 2 of its complaints procedure.