Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202113456)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113456

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

31 August 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 response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of water ingress.
   2. The resident’s reports concerning the lift shaft, broken Perspex, trees outside the property and damp and mould.
   3. The associated complaint.  

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a tower block constructed approximately 40 years ago, the freehold is owned by the landlord. The landlord has not advised what floor the property is on or the number of bedrooms, or whether there are any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. Landlord records show reports of water ingress into the communal porch area in 2007/8. The resident complained about a leak into the porch on 11 February 2020, the landlord arranged for an inspection, and the resident was advised that the matter would be referred to the ‘planned work team’. No formal complaint response was issued. The resident said that she wished to escalate the matter on 10 March 2020, but no landlord response was recorded. The resident reported further flooding into the porch on 26 December 2020.
4. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 1 February 2021 when it said the building had inherent defects, and an outside surveyor had been brought in. It was concerned that a temporary repair would divert water to inside properties, making the problem worse. It said the repair would take time and upheld the complaint.
5. The resident approached the Ombudsman with this and additional repair issues concerning the lift shaft, broken Perspex, trees outside the property and damp and mould in September 2021. On 24 September 2021, the landlord advised residents of the block that maintenance would be taking place on the main roof. Internal landlord emails in January 2022 indicated that roof work was being completed and quotes were also being obtained to replace the roof above the lift motor room and the stairs.
6. The resident says the landlord has failed to maintain the block adequately since 1973/4 and it does not know how to rectify the issue. The resident wants the landlord to look seriously at historical neglect and make good at no cost to residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation and jurisdiction

7. The resident has referred to problems with the block since 1973/4. Whilst she has not asked specifically that these issues form part of the complaint investigation, the Ombudsman must make it clear that it is unable to consider issues which were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme.
8. This investigation is therefore limited to the complaint first raised by the resident in February 2020. Whilst we are limited to the complaint under investigation, it is noted that the landlord has referred to inherent defects in the property, so the Ombudsman can assess the landlord’s response to the issue it has acknowledged through its internal complaint process.
9. As the resident was advised by this Service on 23 December 2021, issues relating to the lift shaft flooding, holes in the Perspex on the building exterior, trees reaching a dangerous height and the damp and mould on windows and ceilings have not been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. They are not therefore included in this investigation, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme. It may also be the case that much of these events are over the six months’ time limit normally considered reasonable in which the resident should bring matters to the notice of the landlord, in accordance with paragraph 39 (e).
10. The resident may wish to raise these issues formally with the landlord and if necessary, she may escalate the matter to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the landlord has had an opportunity to investigate.

Water ingress

11. The lease dated 9 April 1990 says at section 5(2) (a) that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building and make good any defect affecting that structure. Section 6 (3) (c) & (9f) covers the landlord’s responsibility for communal areas. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy 2018 says at section 5 that the landlord is responsible for all repairs to the structure and exterior of the property and maintenance of communal areas. Section 8 covers cyclical and planned maintenance, to include replacement or renewal of roof coverings, due to them reaching the end of their life. 
12. In this instance, no evidence has been provided to explain the two-year delay in the repair from the first (recent) report of water into the porch in February 2020 to the work beginning in January 2022. The resident was not kept informed of progress and no remedy was offered for the delay, despite the stage two complaint being upheld. There has been no contact from either party to confirm if the work is complete, and whether residents will be asked to contribute as the resident had mentioned. However, it is noted that the lease/repairs policy show that this is for the landlord to maintain, and payment towards the roof repair has not been suggested by the landlord in the papers submitted to this Service. If this is a future concern, the resident may raise a complaint as appropriate.
13. These significant delays in communication cannot all be attributed to the national lockdown, although it is appreciated that this would have had some impact initially. The lack of communication with the resident was a failure on the landlord’s part and would have added to the resident’s distress and resulted in a lack of confidence in the landlord.
14. It is appreciated that the overall response by the landlord, albeit delayed, was largely appropriate. The work required to repair the roof appears extensive and this would inevitably have taken a significant time to complete. It is also noted that the landlord was minded to undertake a repair if possible, but it judged that this could cause the water to divert and risked flooding inside the property. It is not then unreasonable that it would wish to ensure it was able to complete a full replacement of the roof covering to ensure no more invasive problems occurred. 
15. However, the overall delay in the repair being started, and in the resident being informed of the plans, was far too long. In addition, the resident stated that she had almost slipped on the water outside her door and mentioned the Health and Safety Executive, but no reply was made by the landlord in this regard, or advice given following the inspection as to any action that would be taken by the landlord to reduce the possibility of a slip or fall.  This could have had serious implications had the resident or another tenant fallen due to the water in the porch.
16. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £250 for failure over a considerable period to address a repair. In this instance, the entry sum would seem appropriate, given that the water was outside of the resident’s property and there is no evidence of the resident chasing this in the nine months between her first and second complaint. It is reasonable to find that the water ingress was not causing continued distress or a permanent impact throughout this period. The landlord had failed in its obligation towards the resident by not engaging to progress the repair or update her on its plans to replace the roofing surface.
17. The landlord should therefore pay compensation of £250 to the resident in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to the resident’s report of a repair in a reasonable amount of time. In awarding compensation, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case. While the repair has taken an excessive length of time to address, there was no evidence of the landlord communicating effectively with the resident during this time. The Ombudsman accepts that challenges will have been faced by the landlord resolving an issue such as a leaking roof on a tower block, however, it failed to communicate effectively which would inevitably cause the resident further distress.

Complaint handling

18. When asked to provide the relevant complaints policy, the landlord provided the incorrect document to the Ombudsman. However, online information says stage one complaints are to be responded to within ten working days, and stage two within 20 working days.
19. The landlord did not issue an appropriate response for the stage one complaint, instead an email with no appeal rights was sent which said the complaint had been closed as the matter passed to the planned works team. This was not appropriate and was not in accordance with the landlord’s own complaints policy, or the Ombudsman’s Code. It did not escalate the complaint when asked to in March 2020 and only answered the complaint formally when the resident contacted it again following further flooding. The landlord did not acknowledge the previous failings, although the complaint itself was upheld.
20. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance allows compensation of £150 for a failure to meet service standards, as in this case where the stage one complaint response was not answered correctly and the request to escalate the complaint in March 2020 was not answered at all.  There was no response to the health and safety aspect of the complaint, as above.
21. The landlord should therefore pay compensation of £150 to the resident in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow the complaints process. 

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress.
23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
24. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the lift shaft flooding, holes in the Perspex on the building exterior, trees reaching a dangerous height and the damp and mould on windows and ceilings is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Order

25. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident £400 in respect of its failings in respect of the repairs and its handling of the complaint.
26. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service within 28 days of this determination. 

Recommendations

27. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and follow up her concerns regarding the lift shaft flooding, holes in the Perspex on the building exterior, trees reaching a dangerous height and the damp and mould on windows and ceilings. 
28. It is also recommended that the landlord remind salient staff of the importance of ensuring the complaint process is followed and that residents are given a clear stage one complaint response with escalation rights and are kept informed at each stage of the internal complaints process.