Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Redbridge (202341042)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341042

London Borough of Redbridge

16 August 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 handling of roof repairs, following reports of a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a 1-bedroom top floor flat. The landlord is a local authority and the freeholder of the 3-storey building.
  2. The resident submits that he reported a roof leak to the landlord in May 2022 and was told to contact its contractor directly. He said he called the contractor to chase the repair numerous times over the following months, and when he called the landlord, was again told to contact its contractor.
  3. There is no evidence of any further action from May 2022 until the resident emailed the contractor on 8 November 2022. He said it looked like the living room and bedroom ceilings would cave in, and water ingress had destroyed the coving. The contractor replied the same day and said it had “major issues” with its previous scaffolding company, but now had a new one. It asked him to send a picture to show exactly where the leak came from and said it would arrange scaffolding for the following week.
  4. In 4 emails sent to the resident between 17 and 25 November 2022, the contractor said it would visit, but did not do so. The resident emailed the contractor on 9 December 2022 saying he had been told it had attended the building and scaffolding would go up mid-January 2023, but it is not clear who he had spoken to. He asked what the cause of further delays was and said he had waited 6 months for the roof repair.
  5. After no response from the contractor, the resident emailed it again on 14 December 2022 to escalate the repair and raise a complaint. He emailed the landlord the same day and said he had raised the roof issue repeatedly with its contractor and asked how to escalate it further.
  6. The contractor emailed the resident the next day and said it tried to arrange scaffolding, but it was now unsafe due to the weather. It also said it had logged a formal complaint and provided contact details for the landlord’s complaint team. The resident then emailed 3 members of landlord staff to raise a complaint, but there is no evidence of any response, or a complaint being raised.
  7. The contractor emailed the resident on 16 December 2022 and said, weather dependant, it could arrange scaffolding for the second week of January 2023. It apologised for the delays and said if it snowed again, it would not be safe.
  8. On 9 January 2023 the resident emailed the contractor to report the roof issues again. He said the issued dated back to May 2022 and the roof was severely leaking. The scaffolding was assembled over the following days.
  9. The resident emailed the contractor for an update on 23 January 2023 as no repairs had taken place in the 2 weeks since the scaffolding went up. The contractor replied a week later and said materials were ordered, and he could contact it for an update any time. The resident emailed for updates on 24 and 27 February 2023 and the contractor said roof tiles had been delivered the previous week, but they were broken, so it had reordered more from another supplier.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2023 to chase a complaint update, but there is no evidence of any response. He emailed the contractor 10 days later to ask if the roof had been repaired. It replied the same day and said work had been completed (no evidence of the work carried out has been provided to this Service), but the scaffolding would remain to monitor the roof.
  11. Around 11 May 2023, the landlord identified repairs required to the building which included roof repairs. It asked its contractor which repairs it would carry out and a quote for each job, so it could send estimated costs to leaseholders. It then wrote to the resident (and other leaseholders of the building) a few days later and set out its intention to carry out building works, including the roof repairs. It invited leaseholders to provide comments within 30 days.
  12. The landlord said further roof repairs were carried out in June 2023. The evidence suggests this was the work identified the previous month, but there is no evidence to confirm exactly what work was completed.
  13. There were no further reported issues until the resident emailed the contractor to report another leak on 13 October 2023. He said his ceiling looked like it would cave in again, and water dripped into his living room and bedroom. The contractor responded 3 days later and said a specialist contractor would contact him and attend.
  14. In the absence of any contact, the resident emailed the contractor on 27 October 2023 to chase the appointment as the leak had worsened due to continuous rain. It replied the same day and said it would attend on 30 October 2023. There is no evidence to confirm if the contractor attended, but the resident chased for an update on 2 November 2023 and the contractor replied saying scaffolding was required again.
  15. The resident emailed for an update on 19 November 2023 and the contractor replied 2 days later that scaffolding would be erected on 23 November 2023. On 5 December 2023 the resident said, although the scaffolding was up, water had leaked into the electrics. The contractor arranged for a roofer to attend on 8 December 2023.
  16. The resident chased for updates on 20, 21 and 23 December 2023 before the contractor replied and said additional scaffolding was required which was scheduled for 8 January 2024.
  17. It is not clear what happened with the scheduled scaffolding but the resident chased on 9 January 2024. The contractor said it would arrange additional scaffolding that afternoon. The resident then raised a formal complaint with the landlord, saying the living room and bedroom ceilings were going to cave in, and the roof leak had caused damp on the walls.
  18. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 January 2024. It said scaffolding had gone up (in November 2023), but additional scaffold was required which had now also gone up. However, it had to wait for the repair work to commence, and apologised that the service did not meet its usual standards.
  19. The resident escalated the complaint the next day. He said there had already been a significant delay and just because action was being taken now did not mean the service was acceptable. He said had repeatedly chased over months and had lived with a leaking roof for months so he wanted compensation.
  20. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 31 January 2024, as follows:
    1. A surveyor attended in February 2023 with the contractor. Scaffolding was erected and roof repairs completed in June 2023. However, the repairs had not resolved the leak.
    2. It acknowledged and apologised for the significant delays between May 2022 and January 2024.
    3. Further repairs were due to commence on 5 February 2024.
    4. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £300 compensation broken down as £50 per year for 3 years for time and inconvenience (maximum amount in line with policy) and £150 for stress and anxiety (maximum amount in line with policy).
    5. It had learned lessons and now worked closely with its contractor to identify work that would cause disruption for residents and make improvements. It had introduced weekly and monthly meetings with its contractor to discuss, document and action issues such as customer service and team management.
    6. It provided referral details to this Service.
  21. The contractor attended on 15 February 2024 and completed further roof repairs which resolved the leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord provided a letter the resident sent in 2015 which said the property had been damaged after a roof leak, his walls were damp, and his electrics did not work properly. The Ombudsman acknowledges the historical roof issues. However, there is no evidence of the resident making a formal complaint about the roof until December 2022.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme). Therefore, in this case, we would only reasonably consider events from December 2021 onwards. As a result, the starting point for this investigation is May 2022 when the resident said he contacted the landlord in relation to the roof. 

The landlord’s handling of roof repairs following reports of a leak.

  1. As a leaseholder, the resident is responsible for all general repairs and maintenance to the property. The landlord’s repairs handbook says it is responsible for external condition and repairs to the structure including the roof, drains and guttering. It says leaseholders share the cost of communal repairs through the service charge.  
  2. The landlord aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs in 5 working days and routine repairs in 28 calendar days. It does not set out a timescale for how long major work (including roof renovations) will take. It says it will consult leaseholders on any planned major works that will cost more than £250.
  3. The resident said he first reported a leak in May 2022. The landlord has not disputed this, and appears to accepted this as correct. Historical weather reports show moderate to heavy rainfall from the middle to end of May 2022 for Redbridge, so it is likely the resident reported the leak around then. The resident also said the contractor used a sub-contractor to provide scaffolding.
  4. It is not clear whether there was a separate roof leak in October 2023, or if it was a continuation of the first due to a lack of sufficient repairs. However, the resident did not report any ongoing issues between June and October 2023 which could suggest the initial repairs were satisfactory (although it is noted that these were the summer months). Regardless, the landlord was responsible to address the roof repairs as and when they were reported.
  5. The landlord has provided limited records to this Service in relation to its handling of the roof repairs, instead relying on its contractor’s evidence. It has therefore not been possible to fully understand the steps it took as the landlord or why, which has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation. The evidence provided showed a number of significant delays where it is unclear exactly what action was taken.
  6. No evidence has been provided to show the contractor made any attempt to arrange scaffolding, or take any action regarding the leak, in the 6 months between May and 8 November 2022. This was an unreasonable length of time. 
  7. After the resident emailed, the contractor acted swiftly and said it would arrange scaffolding for the following week. However, it took a further 2 months for scaffolding to be erected. The contractor said it had major scaffolding issues, but did not explain what these were, and there is no evidence it updated the resident. It would have been reasonable to find an alternative scaffolding provider, or at least update the resident to manage his expectations.
  8. The contractor was not responsible for poor weather in the winter months in December 2022. However, its lack of action from May to November 2022 meant it missed the opportunity to investigate the leak and carry out repairs during the summer/autumn months.
  9. Once the scaffolding was assembled, it took a further 2 months for work to begin in March 2023. The contractor was not responsible for delays caused by damaged materials in February 2023, but it should have updated the resident. No evidence has been provided to confirm exactly when, or what, repair work was carried out in March 2023. This was 10 months after the resident first reported the leak, which was an unreasonable delay.
  10. The landlord has a legal obligation to issue a section 20 notice to leaseholders and provide an opportunity to source quotes for the work. It is not clear whether a notice was issued prior to repairs in March 2023 but it did issue a notice in May 2023. Failure to promptly issue notices delayed the consultation period, and contributed to further delays before the second repairs were completed in June 2023.
  11. Following the resident’s report of the continued leak in October 2023, there were further scaffolding issues. The resident was clearly distressed that the issue had not been resolved, but the contractor did not act with any degree of urgency. Scaffolding was not assembled until 23 November 2023 and it is not clear why there was then further delays until 5 December 2023.
  12. It was also not clear what action the contractor took between 8 December 2022 (when it attended and identified further scaffolding was required) and 9 January 2023 (when the resident chased). The evidence suggests the landlord took no action until the resident chased, which was a failing. Additional scaffolding was assembled between 9 and 23 January 2023, a month after it was identified as needed, and approximately 3 months after the reports of the continued leak.
  13. The third roof repairs were ultimately completed another month later,  approximately 4 months after the resident reported the leak, which represents another unacceptable delay.
  14. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident or its contractor. From the outset, the resident said the landlord told him to contact its contractor directly, which was not a reasonable approach for it to take. The evidence showed the landlord did not contact him to provide any updates, and the repair only appeared to progress when he chased its contractor.
  15. The resident also described considerable gaps between updates which he consistently had to chase for. He often emailed the contractor 2 or 3 times before he received a response over the 21 months, often having to wait days, if not weeks, for a response. The lack of communication over a prolonged period exacerbated his frustration and disappointment. This was unreasonable and caused significant inconvenience.
  16. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there were external factors beyond the landlord’s control which contributed to the overall delays, such as scaffolding issues (sourcing and not having enough), the weather, broken repair materials, and obligation to issue Section 20 notice(s). However, the landlord was on notice that the roof was not in a fit condition in May 2022, with satisfactory repairs not completed until February 2024, 21 months later.
  17. The resident was left to live with a leak in the property for an unreasonable length of time which caused significant distress and inconvenience bar a few months during the summer of 2023 when there was no reports of a leak. This affected his enjoyment of the property, and ultimately could have led to a breakdown in the landlord/resident relationship, which was a failing.
  18. The resident told this Service he had stayed with his mother or friends, or in hotels every time it rained heavily, due to his safety concerns around whether the ceiling would collapse and the use of electrics. He said this added up to months over the course of the 21 months. He also said he was left “astounded” at the lack of action of both the landlord and contractor when the roof condition was a “serious issue that impacted his day-to-day life.” Further, the resident said that dealing with the contractor caused him stress; he lived with the disappointment of repeatedly delayed work; and he felt his reports were not managed appropriately or taken seriously.
  19. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor, or its contractor uses a subcontractor for scaffolding. Its lack of urgency or proactive involvement in the repairs process was not reasonable, and some of the delays would have been avoided had it monitored the repair and taken a more proactive approach. Its approach coupled with poor communication caused significant inconvenience to the resident and disruption to his daily life.
  20. The landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors, rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates. During the 21 months the resident lived with the ongoing expectation of the repairs being done, and the uncertainty caused by a lack of communication and updates. As a result of the landlord’s lack of action, the resident experienced reduced living standards for a significant time, which amounts to maladministration.
  21. The landlord acknowledged the time, inconvenience and stress caused to the resident in its stage 2 response and made some attempt to put things right in line with its compensation policy, and this Service’s dispute resolution principles. However, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation, and was not in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. There has been a significant impact to the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. The Ombudsman therefore makes an order for the landlord to pay £1,000 in compensation (less the £300 it previously offered if this has already been paid). 

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it has an initial complaint stage where it will contact a resident to talk about an issue, to see if the complaint can be resolved before it escalates to the formal complaints process. It says it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days, with a response to be sent within 10 working days. If a resident remains unhappy, it will send a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident emailed 3 landlord staff members in both December 2022 and March 2023 to raise a complaint. However, there is no evidence he was contacted in response, and no evidence a formal complaint was logged. Had the landlord followed its complaints policy correctly and raised a complaint, it might have followed that the roof repairs were completed earlier, which was a missed opportunity to resolve matters as soon as possible.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. After successfully raising a complaint in January 2024, the landlord did send complaint responses within the timescales set out in its policy. Its response demonstrated that it would learn from the outcome of the complaint and make significant improvements with its contractor going forward which was positive.
  4. However, neither complaint response acknowledged its lack of responsibility or monitoring of the roof repairs, poor communication, or failure to raise a complaint when the resident initially asked. There was, therefore, maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and a further order of £250 compensation is made in line with our remedies guidance. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Roof repairs following reports of a leak.
    2. The associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident directly £1,250 (less £300 if this has already been paid).
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should consider the learning from this case and comply with existing obligations to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the updated statutory Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code published 1 April 2024.