Your Housing Limited (202233522)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233522

Your Housing Group Limited

28 May 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s report of leaks from her roof and the associated repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a 3-bed mid terrace house. Her tenancy started in 2002.
3. The landlord has stated that it is not aware of any vulnerabilities within the household.
4. The resident first reported a leak from her roof on 30 September 2021. She reported that the leak was coming through the light fitting on her bedroom ceiling.
5. As the initial report of the roof leak was made out of hours, the landlord sent a plumber as it had no roofers on its out of hours rota. The plumber reported that the leak was from around the soil stack but it was unable to rectify the issue and that a roofer needed to attend. An electrician also attended to make safe the electrics.
6. A roofer attended on 7 October 2021 and reported that it required scaffolding to complete the repair. The repair was completed on 7 December 2021 when several broken roof tiles were replaced, the roof ridge was repointed, and the gutters cleared out.
7. The landlord attended on 23 January 2022 to replace the loft insulation that was moved during the roof repair, reinstate the bedroom lighting, and make good the bedroom ceiling.
8. On 1 July 2022 the resident reported a second leak. She said her bedroom ceiling was “bowing” and water was pouring through.
9. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 6 September 2022. She said:
   1. In October 2021 her roof had leaked and “flooded” one of the bedrooms.
   2. She had had to remove everything from the room and was left with the ceiling “hanging down” and buckets collecting water.
   3. The ceiling was not repaired until March 2022 during which time she was “heating the loft”.
   4. Her roof had started leaking again in July 2022. She had reported this but had heard nothing back from the landlord.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 6 September 2022 and provided its response on 26 September 2022. It said:
    1. It had raised repair works for the roof on 4 October 2021. These were completed on 7 December 2021.
    2. Repairs to make good following the leak were raised on 23 December 2021 and completed on 23 January 2022.
    3. A further roofing repair was raised on 1 July 2022. A roofer attended on 15 July 2022 but the job was “incorrectly closed down” as scaffolding was required.
    4. A surveyor would visit on 26 September 2022 to assess the issue.
    5. Scaffolding would be erected no later than 10 October 2022 and the roofers would attend no later than 12 October 2022.
11. The landlord ordered scaffolding on 28 September 2022. Roofers attended on 15 December 2022, however they were unable to carry out any works due to poor weather conditions. The roofers returned on 19 January 2023 but the scaffolding had been taken down in error so they were unable to complete the repairs.
12. On 17 February 2023 the resident wrote a letter to the landlord as she stated it had not responded to her emails or phone calls. She said she had reported a roof leak to the bedroom in early August 2022 and had been chasing “endlessly” since then. She said that on some occasions she had received notification of repair appointments by text message from the landlord only for no one to attend. Then on 15 February 2023 operatives attended without prior notification. The landlord logged the resident’s letter as a stage 2 complaint request.
13. On 19 June 2023 the resident reported a third leak from the roof coming through the front bedroom ceiling.
14. The roofing repairs were completed on 23 June 2023.
15. This Service wrote to the landlord on 12 July 2023 having been contacted by the resident and advised it to provide a response to her stage 2 complaint. We advised it to provide a response to the resident by 16 August 2023.
16. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 August 2023. It said:
    1. It apologised for the service she had received.
    2. It had agreed with the resident compensation of £300 which comprised:
       1. £100 for “inconvenience caused”.
       2. £100 for the delay in resolving the complaint.
       3. £100 for “service failures”.
    3. It would send the resident a link by email to accept the offer of compensation and provide her bank details.
17. The resident telephoned the landlord on 8 September 2023 and stated that it had not discussed compensation with her and therefore she had not accepted its offer of £300. She was also uncomfortable with the process for accepting the offer as this had to be done online and within a week. The resident refused the offer of compensation and told the landlord to pay it to a food bank or similar charity.
18. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service in September 2023 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. Her complaint to this Service was duly made on 9 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s report of leaks from her roof and the associated repairs.

19. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof.
20. The landlord’s repairs policy provides the following timescales for repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs where there is a “serious risk” to resident’s or their home – the landlord will attend within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repairs where there is “no immediate risk” – the landlord will attend and complete the repair within 21 calendar days. In some cases it will be necessary for a temporary repair to be carried out, the full repair will be completed within 63 calendar days.
21. The policy goes on to state that the landlord will provide a “mutually convenient appointment” for works to take place.
22. The resident reported the first roof leak on 30 September 2021. As the report was made out of hours the landlord sent a plumber as it had no roofers on its out of hours rota. The plumber was unable to rectify the leak.
23. While it is accepted that the landlord may be unable to resolve all repairs on its first attendance, it did not raise follow-on works until 4 October 2021 for roofers to attend. The reason for the delay is unclear. A roofer attended on 7 October 2021 but was unable to complete the repair as scaffolding was required. It is noted that this will have been the cause of further inconvenience and disappointment to the resident. The evidence, however, does not suggest that the need for scaffolding could reasonably have been identified sooner.
24. On 21 October 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord and said the scaffolding had still not been erected and she had “buckets all over the place” to try and catch the leaks. No evidence has been seen that the landlord took action to expedite the repair after the resident’s call. This was unreasonable and understandably led to the resident feeling she was being ignored.
25. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 November 2021 chasing an update on the repairs required to the roof leak. The landlord did not respond and so she emailed again on 19 November 2021. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord responded to either email. This was unreasonable and demonstrates poor communication by the landlord. The landlord’s failings to communicate effectively with the resident caused her time and trouble as well as frustration and upset. The failure to engage with the resident also suggests that the landlord was not proactively monitoring and managing the repair.
26. On 25 November 2021 the resident again emailed the landlord. She said she was still waiting for someone to come and repair her damaged roof. The landlord responded to her email on 30 November 2021 and stated it had added her email to the existing repair log. This was not a reasonable response to the resident’s contact. The landlord did not demonstrate any empathy for the resident’s position, apologise for the delay, or provide a timeframe for the repair.
27. The repair was not completed until 7 December 2021, 2 months after the roofer’s initial visit. This Service considers that this was an unreasonable delay and was outside of the timeframes in the landlord’s repair policy. The reason for this delay is not clear from the landlord’s records but that there was one was a failing.
28. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2021. She expressed frustration that it had not notified her that roofers would be attending to repair the roof or that the scaffolders would then be attending to remove the scaffolding. She said that the landlord should have notified her of the appointments. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will arrange an appointment for repairs. It should reasonably have as a minimum provided notification prior to its operatives attending. That it did not was a failing.
29. On 23 December 2021 the landlord raised follow on works to re-lay the loft insulation which had been moved during the roof repair. This was completed on 7 January 2022. It is noted that this covered the festive period. However, it is not clear why it took the landlord 2 weeks to raise the follow-on works. While not significant, this was a further unnecessary delay.
30. A second leak was reported by the resident on 1 July 2022. The records show that while repair works were raised, they were closed incorrectly. This caused a further unreasonable delay of 2 months until the resident raised a formal complaint.
31. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint a surveyor attended on 26 September 2022 and ordered scaffolding 2 days later. While the landlord assured the resident that scaffolding would be erected no later than 10 October 2022 the repairs would be completed by 12 October 2022 it failed to fulfil these promises. The landlord’s failure to fulfil the expectations it had set caused the resident further upset and frustration.
32. The resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord following contact from the resident on 25 November 2022. They said that the resident had reported a roof leak in October 2021 and that it was still ongoing and had become “more severe”. They asked for a timeframe for the repair.
33. Roofers attended on 15 December 2022 but due to weather conditions were unable to carry out the works. It is accepted that weather conditions are not within the landlord’s control and that its contractors have a legal responsibility to manage risks to its staff. By this time however the resident had been waiting for more than 5 months for the roof repair.
34. The works were rebooked for 19 January 2023 but when the roofers returned the scaffolding had been taken down in error. It is unclear why the scaffolding was removed without the repair having been completed. However, that it was suggests a disjointed approach by the landlord to the repair. This was a further failing that again unreasonably delayed the repair.
35. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 January 2023. She said she had been chasing the landlord for an update regarding the roofing repairs but had received no response. She said she had found a “bubble” on her bedroom ceiling in November 2022 which she had reported to the landlord. An operative had attended and confirmed it was caused by another leak but that she had heard nothing since then. The resident said she had had been waiting 2 months for a response and had “better things to be doing” than chasing the landlord.
36. Internal landlord emails of 3 February 2023 demonstrate that the resident had telephoned and was “very unhappy” regarding the roof leaks. She stated that the roofers were due to complete repairs that day but had attended to find no scaffolding had been erected. This was a further avoidable and unreasonable delay.
37. The resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord again on 3 February 2023 as he had received no response to his previous email. He said that the roof leak had still not been repaired and the resident was “justifiably feeling extremely inconvenienced by the delays”. The landlord responded to the councillor the following day. It apologised for the delay in responding and said it would investigate the reason for the repair delays.
38. Internal landlord emails of 6 February 2023 demonstrated that the reason that the scaffolding had not been erected at the property on 3 February 2023 was because it had prioritised a “more urgent request” for another property where legal action was being taken. It confirmed that no one had “taken ownership” and informed the resident of the change. The emails stated that the work would be completed on 11 February 2023 but it is not clear whether this was communicated to the resident.
39. This Service cannot determine whether the landlord’s decision to prioritise another repair over the resident’s was reasonable as we are not aware of the circumstances of the other resident. It was not however reasonable that the resident’s roof was still leaking 7 months after her initial repair report. Nor was it reasonable that the landlord had failed to inform her that the work had been postponed.
40. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord took any action between February 2023 and June 2023 when it telephoned the resident in relation to her stage 2 complaint. It ascertained that the roof leak had not been resolved and there were now 2 leaks affecting 2 bedrooms. It is clear from its internal emails of 5 June 2023 that, until its telephone call to the resident the landlord had been of the understanding that the roof repairs were completed in February 2023.
41. It is concerning that the landlord was unaware of the outstanding repairs and of the condition of its own property. The landlord would reasonably be expected to be able to access reliable information regarding the status of repairs through its own systems. That it was reliant on the resident to make it aware that the repairs were outstanding was a failing.
42. The landlord advised that a surveyor would arrange an inspection and that it aimed to complete the repair works by the end of June 2023.
43. The roof repairs were eventually completed on 23 June 2023. The landlord inspected the property on 13 July 2023 and confirmed there were no signs of further water ingress. While the internal plastering had been carried out the records show that the resident said that she did not want any decoration works to be carried out until September.
44. The landlord took 10 weeks to repair the first roof leak and a further 7 weeks to replace the insulation and repair the lighting and bedroom ceiling. It took 51 weeks to repair the subsequent leaks. These delays were completely unreasonable and caused the resident severe distress and inconvenience and reduced her use and enjoyment of the property. She also had to invest considerable and unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a resolution. Therefore there was maladministration in its response to the resident’s report of leaks from her roof and the associated repairs.

Complaint handling.

45. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. In some circumstances it may be necessary to extend its response timeframe by up to a further 10 working days. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
46. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider the following factors when deciding on an offer of compensation:
    1. Failure to comply with service standards.
    2. Time, trouble and inconvenience.
    3. Loss of facilities.
    4. Damaged or lost belongings.
47. The landlord’s compensation guidance provides guideline amounts for compensation which include:
    1. Service failure in repairs – £5 per day up to £50 total.
    2. Distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and communication delays – up to £100 each.
    3. Loss of use:
       1. Main room – 20% of the rent after 7 days
       2. Subsequent rooms – 10% of weekly rent after 7 days
       3. Kitchen or bathroom – 25% of rent
48. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was outside the timeframe outlined in its own policy and in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2022.
49. The stage 1 response did not contain all the components identified by the Code as essential elements in a complaint response as it did not:
    1. State the outcome of the complaint (upheld or not upheld).
    2. Acknowledge and apologise for any service failings.
    3. Offer any redress.
50. It took the landlord 6 months and intervention from this Service to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This far exceeded the timescales in its own complaints policy and the Code and was unacceptable. A resident should not have to contact this Service in order to affect a resolution to their complaint.
51. While the stage 2 response accepted service failings it did not acknowledge their extent or impact. It again failed to state explicitly whether the complaint was upheld.
52. The landlord’s policy states that it will discuss its offer of compensation with a resident before responding to the complaint. In this case the landlord failed to do so despite suggesting in its response letter that it had. This was a departure from its policy and caused the resident additional distress.
53. Internal landlord emails of November 2023 demonstrate that it was looking again at the complaint due to the involvement of this Service. The emails stated that:
    1. It did not consider that £300 was “sufficient compensation” due to the length of time the issue had been ongoing for.
    2. If the compensation it had offered was in line with its policy “the Ombudsman would also be ok with it”.
54. It might be helpful to explain that the Ombudsman is not bound by the landlord’s compensation policy and will instead consider what is fair and reasonable in all the facts of the case. It is unclear to this Service why, when it was clearly aware that its offer of compensation was not proportionate, the landlord failed to make a further, more reasonable offer.
55. In this case we do not consider that the level of compensation offered by the landlord was either fair and reasonable nor in line with the landlord’s own policy.
56. The evidence demonstrates that the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property were reduced during the periods that the landlord delayed in resolving the leak and carrying out the associated repairs. The landlord should reasonably have taken this into consideration when deciding on an appropriate level of compensation, especially given that loss of use is explicitly provided for by its policy. That it did not was a missed opportunity to try to put things right.
57. We consider that the compensation guidance set out in the landlord’s policy for loss of use is reasonable. The landlord should also however consider detailing compensation for reduced use and enjoyment within its guidance and a recommendation has been made to this effect.
58. Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,196 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 10% of the total rent during the period between September 2021 and December 2021, and 20% of the rent between July 2022 and June 2023 when this Service considers that the landlord delayed unreasonably to resolve the issues reported by the resident.
59. We consider this calculation fair as the resident had some limited use of the affected rooms but the impact of the leaks meant that she was unable to enjoy them fully. This the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation but considers this to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
60. Further awards have also been made for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in relation to the handling of the repairs and the complaint.
61. Overall the landlord’s complaint handling was slow, failed to resolve the substantive issue within a reasonable timeframe and failed to provide fair and proportionate redress.

Determination

62. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of leaks from her roof and the associated repairs.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

63. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the chief executive of the landlord to apologise to the resident in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
64. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,846 which comprises:
    1. £1,196 for reduced use and enjoyment of the property due to its response to the resident’s report of leaks from her roof and the associated repairs.
    2. £250 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble due to its response to the resident’s report of leaks from her roof and the associated repairs.
    3. £400 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble due to its complaint handling.
    4. This excludes the landlord’s previous offer of £300 which should be donated to a food bank or similar charity as requested by the resident.
65. The landlord should review staff training to ensure that:
    1. Complaints are managed in line with the landlord’s own procedures.
    2. Staff understand the requirements within the Code.
    3. Complaint responses contain the following elements:
       1. what stage the complaint had been considered at (eg stage one or two).
       2. the details of the complaint.
       3. the outcome of the complaint and the reasons for the outcome
       4. details of any remedy to put things right
       5. details of outstanding actions.
    4. Offers of compensation:
       1. Are calculated in line with its own policy, if departure from the policy is justified then a full explanation should be provided to the resident of why this is the case
       2. Provide a detailed breakdown of how the compensation was calculated including any adverse effect or impact of any failings on the resident, and the time taken to resolve the failure.

Recommendations

66. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to review its compensation guidance and consider inserting its approach to awards for reduced use and enjoyment of the property.