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

Amplius Living (202302732)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302732

Longhurst Group Limited

18 November 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of a roof leak.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2017. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a purpose-built block. The resident occupies the property with her partner. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. In early March 2023 the resident reported a roof leak to the landlord. The landlord attended but was unable to complete work as the resident was unwell with COVID-19. In April 2023 the resident complained work to the roof had not been carried out and the leak was ongoing. She stated that belongings had been damaged. She had plastered and redecorated the living room and hallway at her own expense. She was unable to sleep in the bedroom due to the water and debris leaking through, the situation was causing her stress, anxiety, and depression, and her partner had developed bronchitis. She asked the landlord to carry out repairs urgently.
  3. On 8 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in resolving the repair. It informed her it was still deciding how to proceed with the repair. It said because the issue was unresolved it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 and would consider compensation as part of its stage 2 investigation. On the same day the resident provided the landlord with a breakdown of the redecoration costs and itemised the cost of replacing damaged belongings. She requested compensation and a rent refund.
  4. On 20 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for the issues. It offered £754.73 for loss of use of the bedroom, distress, and inconvenience. In relation to its complaint handling, it offered £100.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered. She informed it the compensation offered did not cover her redecorating costs or damage to belongings.
  6. In September 2023 the landlord replaced the roof. Shortly after this the landlord offered an additional £1168.86 to cover the resident’s internal redecorating costs. The total amount of compensation offered by the landlord was £1923.59.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident says she experienced roof leaks since 2018. The evidence shows when these were reported the landlord carried out repairs. In March 2020 she experienced a leak and made a stage 1 complaint about the issue. In response to this the landlord carried out repairs. The complaint was not escalated to the next stage. The were no further reports of a roof leak until March 2023. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of matters from March 2023.
  2. The resident also says her belongings were damaged by the roof leak. This Service is not able to determine liability for damage to personal belongings. However, it can look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, any advice or guidance it offered, and whether it followed its policy and procedure. Where this Service finds a failing in these areas this Service will consider awarding compensation for any inconvenience and distress caused.
  3. The resident has complained the situation of the roof leak caused her anxiety, stress and depression, and caused bronchitis in her partner. This Service is unable to determine a causal between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the impact on the household’s health. However, it can look at how the landlord responded when the resident reported the impact on her health, and whether it followed its policy and procedure. Where this Service finds a failing in this area this Service will consider awarding compensation for any inconvenience and distress caused.

 Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a roof leak

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide sets out the timescales within which it will respond to repairs requests. In the event of ‘rain penetration through roof,’ it says it will treat this as urgent. The repairs guide states it will complete an urgent repair within 7 calendar days.
  2. In this case the resident reported a roof leak on 7 March 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended on 13 March 2023. This was in line with the landlord’s service standards. The contractor stated it had not carried out any work as the roof was in disrepair in several areas. It invited the landlord to send over a works order for it to quote for a new roof. At this stage the landlord should have followed this up, but it did not take any action. Additionally, the landlord was not aware the contractor had not completed any works until the resident complained some weeks later. The situation caused inconvenience to the resident and suggests a lack of landlord oversight and follow up on the outcome of repairs appointments.
  3. Consequently, on 21 April 2023 the resident complained she had received no communication from the landlord on the issue. She stated the leak had caused damage to the living room and hallway. She said leaks and debris falling into the bedroom meant she had to sleep in the living room. She said her bed had been damaged and the situation was affecting her mental wellbeing and her partner’s health.
  4. As part of its complaint response the landlord arranged a different contractor to inspect. A surveyor also carried out an internal inspection. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The contractor concluded the roof should be replaced and informed the landlord. On 25 May 2023 the landlord’s surveyor raised the matter with the landlord’s asset management team. Between March 2023 and July 2023, the resident accommodated several further inspections from different contractors and the landlord that did not result in any works being carried out. The landlord’s repeat inspections caused inconvenience to the resident. The resident told this Service she also heard the landlord’s contractors on her roof on 2 other occasions, without any notice being given to her. This means the landlord and its contractors attended on no less than 6 occasions between March and July 2023. The records show in early July 2023 the landlord sought quotes from contractors for the roof works. In late July scaffolding was installed. However, the landlord’s internal records indicate the landlord had still not decided whether it should complete spot repairs or replace the roof altogether. Positively, the documents provided demonstrate the landlord’s complaints team was providing regular updates to the resident about its progress.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 June 2023. (The landlord’s complaint handling has been investigated later in this report). It said its repairs service had experienced challenges that affected service delivery. It apologised that no repairs had been carried out. It said this was because it was still deciding how to proceed with the repairs needed. It informed her it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 and confirmed it would consider compensation as part of its stage 2 investigation. This was customer focussed and complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of the impact on her and her partners health. This was unreasonable. This Service expects that where a resident informs the landlord the property condition is impacting health, the landlord will make further enquiries about this and carry out a risk assessment. It also did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.
  6. On the same day the resident contacted the landlord to say she was unhappy that the roof leak had not been resolved. She advised the bedroom could not be used and requested a refund of rent. She requested compensation for damaged belongings, and to be reimbursed for her redecorating costs. She also reported that damp and mould had formed on the bedroom ceiling. No evidence has been provided the landlord took any action in relation to the reports of damp and mould. This was unreasonable. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate to inspect the area and arrange a fungicidal wash or other suitable treatment.
  7. On 20 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It referred to the cancelled visit in March 2023 and apologised it had not followed this up. It explained that after this, it had changed contractors, which had caused further delay. It said works would start on 24 July 2023 and it would monitor the progress of the works. It offered £854.73. This was broken down as:
    1. £404.73 partial rent refund for loss of bedroom between March and July 2023.
    2. £300 distress and inconvenience.
    3. £50 under ‘Right to Repair’ regulations for repairs being over timescale.
    4. £100 for delays in its complaint handling.
  8. The landlord’s complaint response did not address the issue of the resident’s damaged belongings or her redecorating costs. This was unreasonable and caused the resident further time and trouble as evidenced by her email to the landlord on the same day expressing dissatisfaction with the compensation offer.
  9. The landlord later informed the resident that in relation to her damaged belongings she should make a claim on her home contents insurance. This was not an appropriate response because the landlord’s compensation procedure states where there is damage to property because of its service failure it will consider compensation requests on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, given the landlord had upheld her complaint about its delays in resolving the leak it had a duty to consider whether it should compensate her for the damaged items. In relation to her redecoration costs it asked her to provide receipts for materials and labour costs. This was fair and in line with its compensation procedure. The resident duly provided receipts for her decorating costs.  The landlord then provided an amended compensation offer that included the decorating costs. The total amount of compensation offered for the delays in resolving the leak was £1923.59. It also offered £100 for delays in its complaint handling.
  10. On 25 July 2023, the landlord decided to replace the roof. This means it took almost 5 months to make a decision since it was first informed of the need for a new roof by its contractor who attended on 13 March 2023. This timescale was unreasonable. The roof was replaced on 25 August 2023. This was just under 6 months since the resident first reported the leak.
  11. This Service finds the repair was initially treated as a responsive repair. Due to the scale and extent of works identified it then concluded it would need to be treated as a planned repair. This was an appropriate decision however, this Service considers the time taken by the landlord to come to a decision took too long. Additionally, the landlord should reflect on whether it could have identified that it should replace the roof at an earlier point given the history of intermittent leaks.
  12. The landlord’s internal communication show it was aware its supply chain and internal processes for transferring issues from its responsive repairs team to its planned repairs team, and gaining authorisation for roof renewals was untimely. The landlord is strongly encouraged to consider how it might be able to implement a more timely and seamless process between its responsive repairs team and its planned repairs team when it needs to arrange a roof replacement. This would help the landlord prevent delays in similar cases in the future.
  13. There were avoidable delays in resolving the roof leak. The landlord’s complaint responses show it recognised the failings and the impact on the resident. It has identified where its internal processes could be improved. When it decided it would replace the roof it started works when it said it would and tracked the matter until completion. It apologised for the delays and sought to put things right with a compensation offer. The amount offered for room loss was in line with its policy and procedure. When it was made aware the offer did not include the residents redecorating costs it amended its compensation offer to include these. Looking at these matters alone this Service would have concluded there had been reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the issue.
  14. However, the landlord took no action in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould on the ceiling, or the impact on her health. It also mishandled the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings. These omissions mean this Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak.
  15. The records shows that the bedroom ceiling was replastered by the resident and the costs reimbursed by the landlord as part of its compensation offer. Therefore, no further compensation is awarded. In relation to failing to act in relation to the reports of damp and mould, and the impact on the household’s health, and its mishandling of the resident’s reports of damage to belongings. The landlord is ordered to pay £250 for distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. In relation to stage 2 complaints, it states it will respond within 20 working days.
  2. In this case the resident made a stage 1 complaint on 21 April 2023. This meant the landlord’s response was due no later than 9 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and stated it would respond within 20 working days. The landlord is aware stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. This was unreasonable and not in line with its policy. It also provided no explanation as to why it was going outside of its published service standards.
  3. On 1 June 2023, the resident chased the landlord up for its complaint response. This caused the resident time and trouble. It provided the response on 8 June 2023. This was just over 4 weeks past its due date. This was unreasonable and no evidence has been provided that show the landlord agreed this timescale with the resident.
  4. In its stage 1 response it apologised for the delay. It said it had expanded its complaints team to be able to provide a better service in future. It did not offer any compensation at this stage. On the same day it escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. This meant the landlord’s response was due no later than 6 July 2023. However, on the 7 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to say it had extended the deadline for its response. It said it aimed to provide its full response by no later than 20 July 2023. It was in line with the Complaint Handling Code to inform the resident of the extension to its response time, however the landlord should have notified her on, or before the complaint response was due. Additionally, this Service notes the landlord did not provide the details of this Service in its complaint extension letter. This is a requirement of the Complaint Handling Code. The landlord must ensure it provides the contact details of this Service when it informs the resident it is extending its complaint response time.
  5. The landlord’s complaint handling was untimely and there is evidence the resident had to chase the landlord up at both stages for its response. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the delays and offered £100 in compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances. This Service finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling which satisfactorily resolves the issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the additional failings.
    2. Pay the resident £1823.59 compensation offered on 4 October 2023 if it has not already done so. (This amount does not include the £100 offered for complaint handling)
    3. Pay £250 in compensation to the resident for the impact of the failings identified by this investigation.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the £100 compensation if offered on 4 October 2023 for its complaint handling if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should consider how it might improve its internal processes in relation to deciding and authorising major roof repairs/ replacements.
  3. The landlord may wish to consider establishing a process to identify properties which have repeated repairs to roofs within a defined period. It should then consider if a survey is required to establish if any there are wider issues and identify if complex or preventive works are required. This might assist the landlord in identifying wider issues at an earlier stage and planning ahead