London Borough of Ealing (202233979)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233979

London Borough of Ealing

24 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs required to the roof.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a flat, which is located on the top floor of the building.
The resident claims to have reported water ingress into the property and communal corridor on 7 November 2022, as a result of a roof leak. The resident states that the landlord promised to make arrangements for its new contractor to inspect the leak and complete any repairs in 28 days.
The resident emailed the landlord a month later. The resident said that despite making numerous phone calls to the landlord, the roof had not been repaired and no-one had inspected his property. He said that he would hold the landlord accountable for any additional damage caused to the property as a result of the landlord’s negligence. The resident asked the landlord to contact him by the end of the week with a resolution.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 13 January 2023. The resident said that he had phoned the landlord repeatedly over the last 4 months, asking the landlord to repair the roof, which was causing water ingress into the property and communal hallway. The landlord had indicated nothing could be done. The resident was concerned that the “leaking spot” was getting bigger and was now touching the spotlights in the property. The resident was scared that damage would be caused to the electrics, which could result in a fire. To remedy the complaint, the resident asked the landlord to fix the roof leak.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 February 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the repairs. It commented that there were no records on its repairs system. It said that it was taking longer than expected to mobilise its new carpentry and roofing contractor. Once in place, priority would be given to the most urgent roof repairs first, with the backlog of work being completed over the following weeks. The resident was directed to phone its customer services centre who would raise a repair to address his concerns about the electrics.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 21 February 2023. The resident said that the landlord had failed to address all of the issues he had raised. It had provided no information as to when the repairs would be resolved.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 February 2023. The landlord apologised for delays completing repairs to the roof and upheld the complaint. The landlord repeated that there had been difficulties moving to a new contractor and that its contractor would focus on the most urgent roof repairs first. The landlord promised to add the resident’s repair request to the priority list. The landlord offered £100 compensation in recognition of delays completing works and the resident’s time and trouble progressing the matter.
The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 February 2023, because the landlord had failed to make the roof watertight and had not provided an expected start date for the roof repair. The resident was anxious that water would get into the electrics and start a fire. The resident did not feel that the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation reflected the level of detriment that had been caused.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord repaired the roof on 6 September 2023. To remedy his complaint, he wanted the landlord to resolve the associated water damage caused to the property and to increase its offer of compensation.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that at the time the repair was first logged, it was in the process of moving from one repairs contractor to another. In a general statement issued to all residents around this time, the landlord said it had apologised for potential delays in carrying out repairs. It had explained that it was working hard to clear the backlog.

Assessment and findings

Relevant agreements, policies, and procedures

The lease states that the landlord will keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition and whenever necessary, rebuild, reinstate, renew, and replace all worn or damaged parts. The resident will keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition, including all fixtures and fittings. The resident will reinstate and replace every part of the property, except in the case of risks insured by the landlord.
The leaseholder handbook states that the landlord will complete emergency repairs in 1 working day, urgent repairs in 7 working days, and routine works in 20 working days. There was no set timescale for completing major or planned works. The resident was responsible for internal repairs or redecoration needed to the property, arising from water leaks. However, residents could claim for damages to the property under the landlord’s building insurance, where the landlord’s own actions or neglect had caused structural damage to the building.
According to the landlord’s repairs policy, repair requests are channelled through its customer service centre. If a pre-inspection is required, this must be arranged within 3 days. If its customer service centre is able to identify what remedial action is needed, a works order will be issued directly to its contractor. The resident will be given a job number, with an expected response time as follows:
1. Emergency repairs will be completed the same working day.
2. For urgent and routine repairs, the landlord will offer the resident an appointment for the next available date. In both cases, this will be no later than 15 working days.
3. The landlord will complete planned works within 60 working days.
The Ombudsman notes that expected timescales for completing repairs is different in the leaseholder handbook, to that of the repairs policy. For the purposes of this investigation, the Ombudsman has based its assessment on the timescales given in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The repairs policy states that the landlord will review the progress of all works orders raised on a weekly basis. If jobs are not completed within target timescales, the landlord will follow this up with its contractor, or the job will be reassigned to an alternative contractor.
The landlord’s housing repairs compensation protocol sets out the circumstances when compensation may be paid. This includes failure by its repairs contractors to provide a service. The landlord may also offer compensation in recognition of a resident’s time and trouble as follows: £10 to £50 compensation at stage 1 and £50 to £100 at stage 2.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs required to the roof.

Although the landlord does not have a record of the resident reporting the roof leak and associated water ingress on 7 November 2022, this does not appear to be in dispute. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not make a record of the resident’s initial report about the leaking roof. This would have prevented the landlord from tracking the repair and taking swift action in the event that expected completion times were not met. This would have been expected in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
As it would have been difficult for the landlord to have assessed the severity of the leak over the phone, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have arranged to make the roof safe as an emergency (the same day). Or if it felt there was no immediate health and safety risk, it could have arranged a pre-inspection within 3 days, in accordance with its repairs policy.
The resident claims that the landlord said it would raise a works order for its contractor to inspect the property and complete necessary repairs in 28 days. As the landlord does not have a record of this conversation, this information cannot be verified. However, the Ombudsman notes that this timeline does not tally with expected response timescales as set out in its leaseholder handbook or its repairs policy. Furthermore, from the evidence seen, the Ombudsman is unable to verify whether a works order was raised by the landlord at this time, what instructions it may have given, or the priority level that the work was assigned.
It is also of concern that the resident claims to have repeatedly chased the landlord between 7 November 2022 and 6 December 2022 for updates, but the landlord has no record of this. This may suggest there was an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
There is no record of the landlord responding to the resident’s email of 6 December 2022 expressing concern about its inaction. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s communications were inadequate and left the resident uncertain of how the matter was being resolved. Although the resident explained in his email that he would hold the landlord accountable for any damage caused to his property resulting from the water leak, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of his right to submit a claim for damages to the landlord’s insurers.
It is noted that the resident expressed particular concern on 13 January 2023 in the stage 1 complaint, about the possibility of water entering the electric light fittings and starting a fire. Since water acts as a conductor of electricity, a leak near a light fitting could present a serious electrical hazard. In view of the potential risk to resident, the property, and other residents, the landlord ought to have addressed this matter straight away. However, it was 17 working days, when it issued the stage 2 response, before the resident was directed to contact its customer services centre to raise an inspection. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have arranged for its electrical contractor to assess and make safe the electrics itself, depending upon its findings. It has not been possible to determine from the evidence seen if the electrics were inspected.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord told the resident in the stage 1 response that it was taking longer than anticipated to mobilise its new contractor, which had resulted in a back log of roofing and carpentry works. It said that these works were being prioritised according to their urgency. However, the landlord did not offer the resident an indicative timescale for fixing the roof, which left the resident without a satisfactory timescale for resolution. The landlord ought to have committed to keeping the matter under periodic review.
While the landlord may have been between contractors, this did not absolve the landlord of its statutory and contractual duties to keep the property in an adequate state of repair and to complete identified repairs in a reasonable timeframe. It was evident from the resident’s stage 1 complaint that the issue with water ingress was becoming a larger problem. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord missed an opportunity to reassess the severity of issue. If necessary, and in accordance with its repairs policy, the landlord could then have considered the merits of reassigning the job to an alternative contractor.
It is encouraging that the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response on 21 February 2023, that its new contractor would be asked to prioritise the roof repair. However, it has not been possible to determine from the evidence seen if instructions were given to its contractor to this effect. Either this did not happen, or this is further evidence of record keeping failure.
The resident states that he chased the landlord for updates multiple times following the stage 2 response. The resident has not provided evidence of this, but the landlord’s records show that the resident and his local Member of Parliament both chased the landlord for a update in July 2023. The landlord has not confirmed how it responded. This again points to issues with record keeping, inaction, or poor communications on the landlord’s part, which was inappropriate.
It is understood that the roof was fixed 43 weeks after the resident first reported the roof leak. This significantly exceeded expected completion timescales for repairs of this nature under the landlord’s repairs policy.
It is encouraging that the landlord itself recognised that there were failures on its part. It apologised for its failings and offered compensation in the stage 2 response, recognising there had been delay and also the resident’s time and trouble. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, the amount of compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified during the Ombudsman’s investigation.
When considered cumulatively the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs required to the roof.
As a remedy, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation which reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay in repairing the roof. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable to compensate at a rate of £5 weekly, over the period 7 November 2022 to 6 September 2023. The Ombudsman makes separate orders for compensation in recognition of the impact caused to the resident from inadequacies in the landlord’s communications.
If the landlord has not done so already, the landlord should explain how the resident can make an insurance claim to cover any loss or damage to the property, as indicated in the leaseholder handbook.

The landlord complaint handling and record keeping.

The landlord operated a 3-stage complaint process at the time of the complaint. Under its policy, the landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 4 days. At stage 1 and stage 2, it aimed to issue a full response within 20 working days. The landlord’s approach was inconsistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in operation at the time. However, the landlord’s latest self-assessment against the Code suggests that its complaint policy now complies with the Code. The landlord is yet to update its website to reflect the changes made to its complaints policy.
It is further noted that the leaseholder handbook reflects the resident’s right to escalate complaints to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The landlord should consider revising the handbook, to include the escalation details to the Housing Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 complaints, in breach of its own complaint policy and the Code. However, both complaint responses were issued within expected timescales under its complaint policy.
The Code also states that when offering a remedy, the landlord must clearly set out what will happen and by when. Where there are outstanding actions, these must be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. While the landlord may not have been able to estimate an expected completion date for the roof repair at the time it issued the stage 2 response, it could have committed to tracking the repair and keeping the resident updated. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations, which led to continued worry, frustration, and uncertainty.
While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord’s record keeping, and information management in this case was inadequate.
When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs required to the roof.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders

The landlord must pay compensation of £415 directly to the resident, which is reduced to £315 if the landlord has already paid the £100 compensation it previously offered. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £215 in recognition of delays repairing the roof, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience, uncertainty, and increased time and trouble, caused to the resident by inadequacies in the landlord’s communications.
3. £100 in recognition of failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must explain to the resident how he may progress a claim for damages through its insurers, in respect of the damage caused to the property by the roof leak.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
The landlord must initiate and complete a review into the issues identified in this case. The landlord should endeavour to bring any identified improvements into operation within 3 months of it completing its review. As a minimum the landlord must consider:
1. A review of its complaint handling on this case, to identify any learning opportunities. In particular:

i. The landlord must consider the adequacy of its internal guidance on responding to evolving safety concerns that may be raised during the complaint process.

ii. The landlord must consider the adequacy of its existing processes for tracking remedies and outstanding actions to a successful completion following closure of a complaint, and its mechanism for keeping residents updated.

A review of its record keeping and communications in this case to identify learnings. The landlord may find it helpful to refer to the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing the information published in its leaseholder handbook and repairs policy, with a view to bringing consistency between these documents in relation to expected timescales for completing repairs.
The landlord should consider amending the information on its website on making complaints, to reflect the revisions of its latest complaint policy.
The landlord should consider amending its leaseholder handbook to include the complaint escalation details to the Housing Ombudsman.