Islington Council (202227599)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227599

Islington Council

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 response to the resident about roof and guttering repairs and leaks at the property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s property is understood to be a flat in a Victorian conversion located beneath with a separate tenanted flat. The resident’s household at the time of the complaint included her daughter, who had recently given birth.
3. The landlord’s repairs log reports that guttering repairs were carried out to property in 2021, to resolve a leak caused by small cracks in the guttering. In August 2021, some works were carried out to the gutter, and it was then noted that the scaffold needed to be amended so that another part of the gutter could be reached. Around this time, in September 2021, the resident made a complaint. She raised concern that the scaffold had been up for 5 weeks and that the incomplete repairs put her at risk of water damage and burglary. She asked for the repair to be completed as soon as possible and the scaffold removed. The landlord’s repairs team responded, apologised for the delay, and said that the scaffold would remain until a repair scheduled for 8 October 2021 was completed. The repairs log reports the scaffold was adapted and gutter works were completed on 3 November 2021.
4. The evidence then advises that on the night of 17 August 2022, there was water ingress to the flat above the resident as a result of heavy rain and a blocked gutter. This caused a collapsed ceiling in the flat above, the impact of which damaged the resident’s own ceiling and led to flooding in her property. On 18 August, contractors attended to make the property safe, and the landlord arranged for the resident and her family to stay in a hotel after she contacted the landlord and visited its offices. In the following days, the landlord supplied dehumidifiers for the resident’s flat property, arranged visits to identify required works, reinstated electrics, and removed damaged belongings the resident had moved to her garden. The information provided advises that the landlord extended the resident’s stay in a hotel to 5 weeks due to concerns she raised about the property condition and the impact on her daughter’s baby. During this time, insurance repairs were raised to rectify internal damage to the resident’s home, and the landlord nulled the resident’s rent so that there was a zero charge for this period. Around this time, some cyclical works were also being carried out, and some works were added that included increasing the gutter size, to try to prevent further similar incidents.
5. The resident made a complaint. She raised dissatisfaction with a lack of response to her 2021 complaint within its complaint procedure. She said that flood had damaged many belongings and affected her property with dirty water and strong damp smells. She raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to the incident, and said that it had lacked urgency, communication and an action plan. She raised dissatisfaction that it had only provided a hotel and dehumidifiers after she had contacted it about these. She raised dissatisfaction that operatives had turned up at the property the night after the flood, when the landlord was aware she was in a hotel. She raised concern that the hotel was unsuitable for her and her daughter’s health conditions and the newborn baby. She raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had not helped her remove sodden carpet from the property, to prevent further damage, and that she had paid for this to be done. She detailed damages that had occurred and said that these had occurred due to the landlord’s negligence. She said she believed after the 2021 repairs that there would be no further problems, and the issue would have been averted if the guttering had been properly repaired back in 2021.
6. In its responses, the landlord acknowledged the concerns the resident raised. It said that based on the contents of her 2021 email, a response was provided by its repairs team. It said a number of properties were affected by heavy rain on 17 August 2022. It reviewed the response to the incident and said it found no failings, as there were no delays progressing works and procedures were followed. It said that the property was considered habitable during the period, and it had made a referral for temporary accommodation due to her concerns about there being a newborn baby and a damp smell in the property. It said that it raised her concerns to the local authority’s temporary accommodation team, which were responsible for the temporary accommodation, but the hotel was the only option available at the time. It said that the flood to the property was an unforeseen event caused by a high volume of water overloading the drainage system, and was unrelated to issues in 2021. It said that she would need to make a liability claim for damages, and it provided details of how to make a claim to its insurer. The insurer declined the claim in November 2022, saying they had not been able to identify any negligence by the landlord and that the rainfall was more than most drainage systems could reasonably handle, but they invited her to supply any additional evidence in support of her claim. The landlord noted that after she chased for updates on the claim it had contacted the insurer and also advised her to contact them directly. The landlord concluded that there was no fault in its handling of the repairs, but it awarded £100 for a delay in its stage 2 response and £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
7. The resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s position. She says that the roof and gutter needed repairs which the landlord never did in 2021. She says that she wants to be compensated for her distress and inconvenience, loss of all her belongings, and the suffering she and her family had to endure.

Assessment and findings

8. The landlord is responsible for repairs to roofs and gutters and should respond to reported repairs about these in a timely manner. From what the Ombudsman can see the landlord did so, as after the leak on 17 August 2022, the landlord’s actions to attend and complete repairs reflected timeframes in its repairs policy. The day after the leaks, the landlord also arranged for the resident to stay in temporary accommodation for what transpired to be a 7 week period.
9. The resident raised dissatisfaction with various aspects of the landlord’s handling. She was unhappy that the landlord did not deal with matters urgently. She was unhappy it only arranged a hotel and dehumidifiers after she contacted it. She was unhappy that operatives turned up when the landlord knew she was in temporary accommodation. She was raised concern about the suitability of the temporary accommodation (a hotel). She was unhappy that she did not receive help to remove a sodden carpet and that she had to pay for this to be done.
10. While the resident received delays in responses to contacts to the landlord, which it is understandable will have caused uncertainty and frustration, the landlord’s arrangement of temporary accommodation the day after the leaks was reasonably timely. The resident was unhappy dehumidifiers were not supplied until she contacted about them, but it is not possible to say they would not have been supplied if the resident had not contacted about them, and the arrangement of the dehumidifiers was ultimately also reasonably timely. The operatives turning up when the resident was in temporary accommodation will have caused frustration and concern about how the matter was being managed, but it is not evident that any significant detriment was caused as a result, as repairs continued to progress over the following days.
11. It is understandable that temporary accommodation that better met the needs of caring for a newborn baby would have been preferable, but the arranging of a hotel was in line with the landlord’s policy and fulfilled its obligations. The landlord could have been more customer focused to help with carpet removal, but its handling was in line with obligations in the tenancy and repairs policies that a tenant is responsible for fittings such as carpets and for moving them to avoid any damage. The landlord later appears to have helped remove belongings such as carpet from the garden, which was positive and seemed to go beyond its obligations.
12. The Ombudsman recognises that the leaks must have been upsetting for the resident and her daughter and caused them substantial worry, disruption and inconvenience. The landlord clearly recognised the impact on the resident, and awarded £350 compensation and nulled the rent for the period she was out of her home. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this reasonably remedied any distress and inconvenience that was caused by the landlord’s handling, and by the hotel not having the same amenities as the resident’s home.
13. The property was greatly affected and many belongings were damaged, which the resident said that the landlord was liable for as she believed they had occurred due to its negligence. The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s understandable desire not to be out of pocket for damage that occurred through no fault of her own, but it is not within our authority or expertise to make definitive decisions about cause and liability for leaks and damage. This falls under an insurance or legal procedure which is separate to the complaint procedure. However, we can assess if the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably.
14. The resident contended that the 2022 leaks arose due to 2021 works not being completed, to which the landlord responded they were an unforeseen event and unrelated to 2021 issues. The Ombudsman cannot see any evidence that specific works identified in 2021 failed to be completed and led directly to the leaks and damage in 2022.
15. The repairs records show that works were carried out in 2021 over several months, as variations were required, and were finally completed in early November 2021. The leaks at that time were reportedly caused by cracks, which were repaired, while the leaks in 2022 were reportedly due to a combination of high volumes of water and gutter blockages.
16. There were some works in 2022 after the leaks, including roof works and works to expand the gutters, but these appear to have been works in response to the 2022 incident, to try to prevent a similar one happening again. It is not evident that such works were identified as required, and should have been completed, before the 2022 incident. The landlord acted in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations by reviewing the resident’s contention and providing its position.
17. The Ombudsman’s insurance guidance says that where residents believe a landlord is liable for damage to their possessions, a landlord should consider referring the claim to its own insurer, rather than referring residents to their own insurance. The landlord acted in line with this, as it provided details for how to make a claim to its insurer, and a claim was subsequently considered and declined by the insurer. The Ombudsman, as noted above, does not make definitive decisions about liability and negligence. If the resident disagrees with the insurer’s decision, she has the option to provide further evidence as the insurer invited, or to seek independent advice.
18. The resident raised dissatisfaction with delays receiving the insurer’s decision, but the landlord provided reasonable assistance by chasing a response to the claim. The resident has also indicated that she did not receive a response from the insurer about her claim, however the Ombudsman was provided a copy of a November 2022 claim response which reasonably shows a response was sent.
19. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable. The landlord took appropriate steps in response to the leak in 2022. The landlord took reasonable steps to review whether it had been negligent, and the Ombudsman has not seen any clear evidence that damage arose from historical failings. The landlord took action to refer the resident’s claim to its insurer, which provided opportunity for her claim to be considered under an appropriate procedure. The landlord’s award of £350 and nulling of the rent while the resident was in temporary accommodation showed positive empathy with the resident’s situation, and reasonably remedies any service issues she experienced during what will have been a very difficult time.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident about roof and guttering repairs and leaks at the property.