Lewisham Council (202229068)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229068

Lewisham Council

29 April 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, water ingress, and repairs needed to the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The landlord is the freeholder of the building and a local authority. The property is a flat on the first floor of a 2 storey building. There is a flat below which is also owned by the landlord.
The resident has been pursuing repair issues with the landlord related to the guttering, the external brickwork at the property and a damp area below his kitchen bay window since 2019. He noted that the windows were in a poor condition in 2019 and was informed by the landlord that he would need to seek its permission to carry out alterations if he wanted to change the windows.
The landlord’s records suggest that work was completed to the guttering in 2020 and it arranged for the damp area below the resident’s kitchen bay window to be plastered in October 2020. The resident continued to report that the same area was becoming damp in October 2020 and believed that the issue related to the window as the frame was rotten. The resident pursued his concerns and updates from the landlord on at least 15 occasions between November 2020 and October 2022.
The resident pursued a formal complaint in February 2023 which exhausted the landlord’s 3 stage complaints process in June 2023. The complaint taken through the landlord’s complaints process related to:
1. The length of time he had been pursuing repairs and the lack of communication from the landlord. Works to replace the bay area, window, and repair the external masonry had been recommended to prevent damp caused by water ingress, but nothing had been done.
2. Further issues reported following the replacement of the kitchen sash window by the landlord in March 2023 which included ongoing issues with water running down the interior walls of the property, leaking gutters and the rotten wooden beams they were supported by, the remaining windows in the property which the resident said required replacement, and works to the external brickwork that had not been completed.
3. The resident’s dissatisfaction that the landlord had refused to remedy the plaster around the kitchen bay window, stating that it was his responsibility to carry out internal repairs as a leaseholder.
4. A continued lack of progress, ownership and communication by the landlord regarding the works.
5. He had been informed that his property was not scheduled for any major works.
6. Issues with the roof, with the resident noting that he could see daylight through the tiles and that there was no felt or ventilation.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord:
1. Initially apologised that despite chasing repairs to the kitchen bay window area for the past 3 years, no works had taken place and the damp and mould were worsening. It said it had instructed a contractor to replace the kitchen sash window, repair parts of the external wall, and repoint in June 2022.
2. Explained that the contractor had said there had been delays due to the landlord’s delay in approving quotes and a long lead time for the manufacture of the window for which it apologised. It apologised for the delays, its failure in service and the inconvenience and distress caused.
3. Later apologised that the resident had experienced issues with the guttering, external brickwork, and delays. It admitted its service was below standard and that its internal process for completing works had failed which meant the resident had been waiting for a considerable period. It confirmed that it should have contacted its contractors and followed up on the guttering repairs once it had received the resident’s initial report.
4. It confirmed that the scope of work was waiting to be approved and that, once approved, scaffolding would be placed by its roofing team. It informed the resident that he would need to liaise with its major works team regarding the external masonry works.
5. It said it had added the resident’s case to its complaints aftercare list to ensure that the repairs were completed. It had let all managers know of the poor service he had received and asked them to make improvements.
6. In subsequent communication, the landlord said that the resident had not followed its advice to report any window repairs for which it was responsible to its repairs service but that it had asked its contractors to inspect the remaining 3 windows in the property for repair or replacement. It confirmed that repairs to the demised premises as per the lease would be the resident’s responsibility to maintain and repair. It raised a job on 25 April 2023 for the windows to be inspected.
7. On 27 April 2023, the landlord’s major works team advised that the property was not scheduled for any major works under its 5 year programme.
The landlord’s “independent adjudicator” responded to the resident at stage 3 of its complaints process on 14 June 2023. They upheld the complaint, acknowledging that it had taken the landlord too long to address the repair issues he had raised. They made no formal recommendations and said that they expected leaseholders to use the legal means available to them, advising the resident to seek an order for specific performance and claim for damages via the court. They noted that the resident could approach the Ombudsman if they were dissatisfied with the response.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that in November 2023, the landlord instructed contractors to place scaffolding to the rear of the property to provide access to the guttering and fascia. Its records from January 2024 show works had not progressed due to issues accessing the rear garden via the downstairs neighbour’s flat. In its submissions to the Ombudsman in March 2024, the landlord advised that it continued to experience issues with access through the flat below and had been unable to place scaffolding in order to progress works. It was arranging an inspection to support the resident with the internal condition of the property while awaiting repairs, such as a mould wash. It said it was ensuring to keep the resident updated on its progress.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as:
1. He was concerned that he had been told he would need to apply to court to resolve his concerns with the landlord. He had sought advice but was not in a position to progress a legal claim.
2. The issues had been ongoing for 4 years and there had been a lack of communication or responsibility by the landlord.
3. There was an ongoing severe damp issue in the area under his kitchen bay window, the plaster was blown and water seeped into the interior of the property when it rained. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had refused to make good the area when the window was installed.
4. Operatives had attended and agreed that the guttering, fascia and external masonry needed resolving but he had heard nothing since despite following up several times.
5. The remaining windows in the property were old, dilapidated, rotten and mouldy and needed replacing.
As of April 2024, work to the external brickwork letting water in, damp below the windows and plaster, replacement of broken guttering and rotten fascia, and an inspection of the black mould and rotten windows remained outstanding and the resident advised that he had heard nothing further as to when the works would take place.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his stage 3 escalation, the resident raised concern that there were issues with the roof, which he could see daylight through, and there was no felt. While the Ombudsman notes that the resident had raised concerns about the roof in 2019 and the evidence shows that the roof was recommended for replacement in 2018, the resident did not raise any specific issues related to the roof within his initial complaint to the landlord.
As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that we can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to communicate with the resident regarding his concerns and to confirm its position.
In line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident clearly expressed his dissatisfaction in writing regarding the ongoing issues impacting his property between December 2020 and March 2021, despite not specifically asking for a complaint to be raised until February 2023.
It is noted that the resident began to report repair issues within the property in early 2019 and has complained that the issues have been ongoing since he bought the property. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to October 2020.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s leasehold guide states that the leaseholder is responsible for repairs to the internal parts of the property, including plaster to the walls and ceilings. The landlord is responsible for the structure of the property, including window frames (but not the glass), the roof, shared drains, gutters, downpipes, external parts of walls and external decorations.
It confirms that where a leaseholder experiences a leak into their property, and they are not sure where it is coming from or believe it is coming from the roof, guttering, or through walls, they should report this to the landlord and it would then make arrangements to repair where this falls under its responsibility.
It further states that the leaseholder may wish to discuss any claim for damage resulting from water ingress with their building insurer and in some cases they may be able to claim against the landlord’s buildings insurance. The landlord’s repairs policy states that leaseholders are expected to have adequate building insurance in place, and that the landlord takes out buildings insurance for shared blocks that include the leasehold premises.
The landlord’s complaints procedure at the time of the resident’s complaint was comprised of 3 stages. At stage 1, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident remains unhappy with the response, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord will then respond within 20 working days. The landlord had an additional third stage, which involved an independent adjudicator carrying out a review of the complaint. The adjudicator aimed to send a response to both the landlord and the resident within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation, reimbursements, and remedies procedure allows for it to pay compensation to residents in recognition of distress and inconvenience and time and trouble as a result of its failings. It further states that where a resident believes that the landlord is responsible for damage or loss, they should be sent a copy of its insurance claim form. The resident will be asked to provide evidence and information to support their claim, for example receipts for the goods damaged or photographs showing the damage, for investigation by its insurance and risk team.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, water ingress, and repairs needed to the property.

As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked on a number of occasions to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which included incomplete repair logs that did not include full job descriptions, completion dates, or details of what happened on each visit. Despite making additional requests to the landlord for information about the scope of works it understands to be required, inspection reports, communication logs and the attempts it had made to progress works, this was not provided.
Good record keeping is one of the fundamental aspects of housing management, and without it a landlord is often unable to support any claims it has made about the actions it has taken, or provide evidence that it is meeting its obligations fairly and consistently. In this case, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it acted appropriately in response to the resident’s concerns for a significant period, and there is a lack of evidence to show that the resident was provided with any meaningful communication regarding the scope of works required to the property, any limitations it faced, the reasons behind any delay, or the actions it would take to resolve the reported issues.
In this case, the landlord has not disputed at either stage of its complaints process that the issues had taken more than 3 years to resolve. It acknowledged delays and that its service was below standard. The landlord was put on notice that previous works it had undertaken had not resolved issues related to damp affecting the resident’s kitchen bay window area on 26 October 2020. It is of concern that the resident has reported that he continues to experience the same issue over 3 years later, with only 1 repair to renew the bay window confirmed to have been completed during this period.
The landlord’s damp inspector confirmed on 20 November 2020 that operatives were due to inspect the guttering and flashing and complete an external repair to the window reveals. However, there is a lack of documentary evidence to show that this was completed. Despite the resident chasing the landlord on a number occasions, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that any further action was attempted by the landlord to diagnose the issues or confirm its position until around April 2022. This was a period of significant, unexplained delay and the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the landlord acted reasonably by communicating the reason for any delay to the resident during this period. This was likely to cause him considerable distress and uncertainty about how the issues would be resolved and it is evident that he spent time and trouble pursuing a response.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of the visit in April 2022. The landlord’s records show, in part, that scaffolding was required on 14 June 2022. It has also provided records of a repair job raised on 22 June 2022 which suggests that parts of the sash window needed to be renewed. This repair entry was incomplete. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the previous actions it had taken to establish the cause of the issue which was believed to be structural. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that the guttering was inspected despite previous records suggesting that this was potentially the cause of the damaged window and water ingress.
The evidence shows that the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing repairs in 2022 and there is no documentary evidence to suggest that he received a response until he raised a complaint in February 2023. This was likely to have caused additional inconvenience and led the resident to be uncertain as to how, or whether, the landlord intended to remedy the damage to his property.
Within its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 February 2023, the landlord confirmed that it had initially instructed its contractors to renew the sash window, including the sealant and putty to the exterior, and complete repairs and repointing to the external walls. Works to renew the kitchen bay window reportedly began on 14 March 2023 following the resident’s complaint and the resident has confirmed this was completed. However, the landlord has not provided clear evidence to show that the work to the external brickwork took place and the resident needed to continue to pursue his concerns as the window replacement had not resolved the issues, adding to the overall inconvenience caused.
It is noted that the landlord had previously advised the resident that there was a need to inspect the guttering again following works in November 2020. However, the repair history of the property does not appear to have been reviewed by the landlord and no inspection was raised for the guttering until 17 March 2023 following further reports by the resident, and an inspection arranged for 22 March 2023. Again, the Ombudsman has not been provided with the outcome of the inspection or the scope of works the landlord said were awaiting approval in its stage 2 complaint response.
In addition, despite the landlord advising that works to the pointing and external brickwork were to be completed as it had instructed contractors to do so initially in June 2022, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this was carried out alongside the kitchen bay window renewal. The resident raised concern that there were bricks missing, and poor pointing and filling to the affected external wall on 27 March 2023, shortly after the initial works were due to begin.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to determine whether the works it had previously instructed its contractors to complete (repairs to masonry and repointing) had been completed and recall the operatives if these had not been done satisfactorily. It is of concern that the landlord advised the resident that he would need to contact its major works team regarding the external brickwork and that the major works team then said it had no repairs scheduled for the next 5 years. This was likely to have caused additional frustration and distress to the resident and demonstrates a continued lack of monitoring and oversight as to the works required at the property.
As part of his complaint, the resident also advised that the remaining windows in the property were in need of replacement. It should be noted that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the remaining windows in the property are in need of replacement and there is a lack of documentary evidence confirming that a contractor has recommended a replacement due to the window frames being beyond economical repair. However, the Ombudsman can investigate how the landlord responded to the resident’s request.
The evidence shows that the resident initially asked for an inspection to assess the remaining windows on 16 March 2023 as the bedroom window had broken glass, and his living room window had a broken sash. He noted that both windows were affected by mould/rot and had been painted shut. It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that he would be responsible for the glass and the windows being painted shut in line with the lease. The landlord would not be obliged to improve the energy efficiency or replace the windows with double glazed windows at the resident’s request. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged an inspection given the resident’s report that the frames were rotten.
The landlord’s records show that the resident requested a repair appointment via its online repair request form on 19 March 2023. In its communication to the resident on 25 May 2023, following further requests for updates by the resident, the landlord said that he had not adhered to its advice to report the repair to its repairs service on 17 March 2023. This was unreasonable as the landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman that it has a record of the resident requesting the repair on 19 March 2023 and should have been in a position to progress the request without attributing fault the resident.
While a repair was logged on 25 May 2023 to inspect 3 windows in the property, the repair log is incomplete and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the inspection was completed, or that the landlord has confirmed its position to the resident regarding whether the windows require replacement. This was likely to have contributed to the overall inconvenience caused to the resident and further diminished his trust in the landlord. An order has been made below for the landlord to address this matter.
The resident raised specific concern in his communication with the landlord that his plastering had been damaged by both the works to install the new window in March 2023 and the damp issues experienced over a considerable period of time as a result of the delays. The landlord would not be obligated to complete general works to the internal parts of the property, including plastering, as this would fall under the resident’s responsibility under the lease. However, it would have been expected to provide clear information to the resident regarding its insurance providers if it was not willing to “put right” the area in question, as the resident clearly believed it was liable for the damage. The landlord failed to provide information related to its liability or buildings insurance at any stage which would have been appropriate in line with its policies and procedures.
Given the length of time the issue has been ongoing and the admitted delays in taking action by the landlord, it is the Ombudsman’s view that, once external works are complete, the landlord should consider what internal remedial works it is willing to complete, or fund, to put right the damage to the resident’s property. It should also confirm whether it is willing to carry out any interim works to treat the damp and mould in view of the reported issues it faces with arranging the outstanding works. It should write to the resident to confirm its decision, giving a full explanation. If it decides not to complete any internal works, it should provide assistance with making a claim via its insurers should the resident wish.
It is of concern that despite issuing its stage 2 complaint response to the resident in April 2023, he has advised that the issues remain outstanding a year later. The landlord’s records suggest that its contractors were instructed to place scaffolding in November 2023, over 6 months after its stage 2 complaint response. There is a lack of evidence to show that the resident received any update regarding the works during this period. In addition, there is a lack of evidence to show he was provided with clear information about what works it had agreed to complete. The landlord has not provided any further clarity to the Ombudsman regarding this and the works required to the property remain unclear as a result, indicating a continued lack of oversight.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to suggest that the landlord has communicated effectively with the resident regarding the outstanding works despite informing the Ombudsman in March 2024 that it was ensuring it kept him updated. In addition, despite advising the Ombudsman that the reason for the delay in completing works was due to the tenant in the property below refusing access to the garden for it to install scaffolding, it has failed to provide evidence confirming that it had taken reasonable steps to progress the works.
Given the length of time the issues have been ongoing, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had communicated with the tenant below to facilitate access as a matter of urgency, or to have considered alternatives such as formal action to gain access where the tenant was not cooperative (or, if possible, gaining access via a neighbouring property). This is particularly important given the resident’s ongoing reports that the issues were causing damage to the property and the length of time the matter has been ongoing. This has been considered within the orders made below.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp caused by water ingress, and repairs needed to the property. There were significant unexplained delays over a period of 3 years along with poor records indicating a lack of oversight of the reported issues. There was also poor communication, with the resident needing to spend significant time and trouble and an unreasonable level of involvement in pursuing a resolution. The delays and lack of proactive management of the repair caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident over a prolonged and unreasonable period. The landlord also failed to offer any form of suitable redress to the resident in an attempt to put things right for him.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website), it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that a significant level of compensation is warranted to be paid to the resident in order to put right the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him. Several orders have also been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (initially in place from December 2020), a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf. It is the Ombudsman’s view that a resident should not need to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such.
The landlord had multiple opportunities to treat the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of the repairs, and lack of communication, under its formal complaints process at an early stage. The evidence shows that he had expressed clear dissatisfaction a number of times between November 2020 and his request for a formal complaint on 10 February 2023. This includes asking whether he needed to raise a complaint via the local authority or Ombudsman in order for the issues to be resolved, expressing dissatisfaction with the lack of communication and delays, suggesting that he may need to seek legal advice, asking whether there was a manager he could speak to, and mention of taking the matter further. It was a failure on the part of the landlord that it did not seek to consider his concerns formally despite evident delays.
Following the acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint in February 2023, the landlord responded at each stage of its complaints process within a reasonable timescale. However, its responses failed to demonstrate that it had fully considered or investigated its own actions, meaningfully engage with the issues raised, or consider the extent of the impact on the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that the contractors had said that the failure was due to the delay in it approving quotes and a long lead time for the window manufacture. While it noted failure in service, and the inconvenience and distress caused, it did not clearly set out any specific failings, comment on its own actions, establish points of learning, or explain what it would do to prevent similar failings in the future. As such, it failed to offer an adequate complaint response to the resident.
In addition, the resident raised specific concerns in his escalation request to stage 2 on 17 March 2023 which were not addressed by the landlord. These included his report that it had refused to make good the area of plaster below the window (which had been impacted by both the window renewal and the ongoing damp issues) despite doing so previously, his belief that the landlord was liable for the damage due to the length of time it had taken to complete works, and his view that it had ignored his request that the other windows in the property were inspected for replacement. The landlord’s failure to address these concerns led to the resident needing to spend additional time and trouble pursuing a resolution following the complaint which was likely to add to his frustration.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also failed to provide the resident with adequate information about how he could seek redress through its insurance team in line with its policy. In addition, it failed to demonstrate that it had sought to put things right for the resident by offering redress in view of its identified failings in line with its compensation, reimbursement and remedies policy. As such, the resident remains without adequate redress for the failings identified by the landlord and several orders have been made below.
It is of concern that within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not provide clear information regarding the scope of works that had been put forward for authorisation and referred to these only as roof repairs. It did not provide any further details of the findings of the inspection in March 2023 or clarify what the works were. The records provided by the landlord do not offer any further clarity and it remains unclear as to whether the landlord has a clear understanding of the works required. In addition, it failed to confirm how long it estimated the authorisation process would take or provide any reassurance to the resident who continued to experience water ingress into the property at this stage.
Furthermore, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken ownership of the repair issues reported or seek to provide a clear plan of action within its response. It acted unfairly to the resident within its response by placing the onus on him to spend additional time and trouble pursuing the works required to the external brickwork with its major works team. The resident should not have needed to do this and the landlord should have systems in place to allow it to track works internally and provide adequate updates for the purposes of responding to queries and a complaint.
While the landlord said that it had passed information related to the complaint to relevant managers to make improvements, it failed to demonstrate that it had taken points of learning from the complaint, with the evidence provided showing that it continued to fail to update the resident, or take ownership of the works, following the complaint. This resulted in further inconvenience to the resident and was likely to further undermine the landlord/resident relationship and increase his concern that his complaint was not taken seriously.
At the time of the complaint, it was the Ombudsman’s view that a third complaint stage was not necessary as it could make the complaints process unduly long. The independent complaint handler at stage 3, while responding within a reasonable timeframe, gave unhelpful advice to the resident regarding his options moving forward. The case handler was independent of the landlord. However, it is of concern that the landlord was aware that they told the resident to seek a legal route to obtain redress, but it did not seek to reassure the resident that it could put things right for him without him needing to pursue a legal recourse. Overall, the third complaint stage was unnecessary, unreasonably delayed the resident from approaching the Ombudsman and overcomplicated the process.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) became statutory on 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements. The Code stipulates that stage 2 is the landlord’s final response and it does not recognise a third stage. The landlord’s website confirms that the landlord has removed the third stage of its complaints procedure from 1 February 2024. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that complaints moving forward will not be unnecessarily delayed or overcomplicated by having a third “independent” stage.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. While the responses were issued within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had fully understood or investigated his concerns, taken ownership, or sought to adequately put things right or take points of learning.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, water ingress, and repairs needed to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the failings identified within this report;
2. provide a breakdown of the scope of works it has already determined to be necessary but which are outstanding.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £2,300 compensation, comprised of:
1. £1,000 in recognition of the time and trouble spent by him over a significant period because of its lack of ownership and poor communication;
2. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failings in its handling of the repairs;
3. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him by its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Assign, and provide the resident with details for, a member of staff to be a point of contact for him and to monitor the ongoing works through to completion.
2. Carry out an external survey to diagnose the cause of continued water ingress into the resident’s property in view of his concern that a leak runs down the interior wall when it rains. This should include assessments of:
  1. the external brickwork, gutters and fascia;
  2. the internal parts of the property affected by the water ingress;
  3. whether the remaining windows are in need of replacement.
3. Consider including an assessment of the roof within the above survey in view of the concerns highlighted in this report.
4. Provide a copy of the survey report to the Ombudsman.
5. Consider what internal remedial works it is willing to complete, or fund, to put right the damage to the resident’s property that was contributed to by its delays. It is also to consider any interim measures it is willing to put in place while awaiting for works to be carried out.
Within 2 weeks of the survey and inspection, the landlord is to write to the resident setting out:
1. The findings of the survey and the scope of works required to remedy water ingress and damp to the property and a schedule setting out the timescale in which it intends to complete the works.
2. Its decision regarding whether it is willing to complete, or fund, remedial works to the internal parts of the property and what this would entail. If it decides not to complete any internal works, it should provide assistance to the resident with making a claim via its insurers should he wish to do so. It should waive any timescale limitations in which the resident can make a claim on this occasion.
3. A plan of action in relation to how it intends to gain access to the rear garden to place the scaffolding required in line with its required access policy.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case and provide a copy of the review to the resident and this Service. This should consider the evidence that was available (or may have been available at the time) in relation to the resident’s reports, any missed opportunities there were to resolve the repair issues at an earlier date, points of learning that can be taken from the case, and actions it could take to improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord communicates with the resident regarding his concerns in relation to the roof and seeks to confirm its position as to whether the roof is in need of replacement and why this was not progressed when initially recommended.
It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that they have adequate knowledge of the landlord’s compensation, reimbursement and remedies procedure and can utilise this when responding to complaints where there are identified failings.
It is recommended that the landlord considers its review of this case alongside its self assessment against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (provided to the Ombudsman in November 2023) to determine whether it has put satisfactory measures in place since the resident’s complaint.