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

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202210333)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210333

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

7 February 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’s reports of roof repairs and water ingress.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a top floor 1-bedroom flat. The lease began in October 2021. The landlord is a local council and the freeholder.
  2. At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints procedure for leaseholders, which comprised of:

a.     Problem solving at stage 1. It stated that it would try and deal with the complaint informally at this stage by providing information and taking appropriate action to solve the matter.

b.     Investigating the matter at stage 2.

c.      Reviewing both the handling and outcome of the complaint at stage 3.

  1. On 22 August 2022, we contacted the landlord to record the resident’s complaint as she had not received a formal complaint response. We asked it to respond to the resident within 10 working days. The landlord was unable to resolve the complaint at step 1 and therefore provided its step 2 response on 13 October 2022, where it:

a.     Apologised for the failings identified.

b.     Acknowledged the delays to the roofing repairs and that the resident had spent a considerable amount of time asking for updates.

c.      Confirmed the repairs to the room had been completed and the scaffolding should have been dismantled on the 15th of October 2022.

d.     Said it would investigate any internal repairs required associated with the roof leak.

e.     Offered compensation in the sum of £400, comprising of:

  1. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairs
  2. £100 for time and trouble chasing the repairs
  3. £100 for complaint handling delays.
  1. On 3 October 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to step 3 because the landlord could not provide timescales for repair, and she did not think the compensation offered was enough to remedy the failings.
  2. On 5 January 2023 the landlord provided its step 3 response. It’s response:

a.     Explained the works to the roof required leaseholder consultation approval which caused delays. It had now agreed a quote with the contractor however, it would provide a date for works to be completed when it had received confirmation.

b.     Offered compensation in the sum of £600, comprising of:

  1. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairs
  2. £200 for time and trouble chasing the repairs
  3. £200 for complaint handling delays.
  1. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident explained to us she was satisfied with the landlord’s proposed plans to complete repairs and the compensation offered. However, on 12 September 2023 she asked us to investigate her complaint because she was still waiting for the repairs to be completed. The resident asked us to consider her complaint because she was caused further distress by the delays.

Assessment and findings

Roof repairs and water ingress

  1. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) (LTA), the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and the exterior of the property including roofs.
  2. On 2 December 2021 the resident reported roof damage following a storm and said she could see daylight where tiles had blown off. The landlord’s repair records said it ordered a roof survey on 9 January 2022, which aimed to refurbish the full loft space and renew the roof. The landlord acted appropriately to order a survey and plan repairs. However, it has not provided evidence to confirm a survey had been completed. Later evidence, from the resident on 22 February 2022 confirmed no inspections had taken place and the only evidence of a survey being completed was on 29 November 2022, which are both assessed later in this report.
  3. On 31 January 2022 the resident told the landlord there was water ingress through the roof and the damage had worsened, with more tiles coming off and holes appearing. There was no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
  4. On 22 February 2022 the resident said the landlord inspected the roof and confirmed scaffolding was needed. This was not a survey and there is no evidence a survey took place. She also said it confirmed the works would be treated as urgent due to the damage. This was approximately 12 weeks since the resident first reported the roof damage and water ingress. The landlord had already exceeded its repairs policy timescale of 40 days to complete planned repairs. This was not appropriate and is evidence of a failing.
  5. On 23 February 2022, the resident reported the water ingress had caused damage to her living room ceiling and walls in several places. There was evidence of internal correspondence to the landlord’s roofing department for a ‘make safe’ repair to be completed. However, a further internal email on 15 June 2022 confirmed it had not received a response and would chase it because the resident had contacted it for an update.
  6. The landlord chased a response, and the roofing team confirmed the works would be added to the repair jobs list. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not monitor the repair request and take ownership to ensure a make safe repair was responded to urgently, considering the resident had reported this 4 months earlier.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds published in September 2020, explained that landlord’s need to ensure timely and accurate communication with all residents. Also, where maintenance works are planned, residents should be informed of the works and timescales. The resident asked the landlord for updates on the planned works on several occasions between 23 February 2022 and 12 July 2022, including asking to make safe the roof while roof repairs were being planned. There was no evidence the resident’s requests for updates were responded to. Neither had the landlord informed the resident of its planned actions or timescales since she first reported the repair. The landlord’s communication was not appropriate.
  8. On 17 October 2022 the landlord completed a temporary repair to the roof. The repair record noted the repair was required due to the holes present in the roof however, the resident had raised her concerns about holes in the roof since the damaged occurred on 2 December 2021. It was inappropriate the landlord had taken approximately 10 months to complete a temporary repair. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescales and is evidence of a further failing.
  9. There was no further evidence of any planned works or communication with the resident until 29 November 2022, when the repair record confirmed the landlord’s contractor had surveyed the roof repairs and provided a quote. On 14 December 2022 the landlord agreed to the quote and asked its contractor to start roof renewal works. While it was positive to see it had now taken steps to survey the works and complete the repairs, it was inappropriate the resident had to wait approximately 12 months for the landlord to approve the repairs. This was outside of its repair policy timescales.
  10. Within its step 3 complaint response dated 5 January 2023, the landlord explained the roof repair delays were because it had to complete a S.20 consultation with other leaseholders before the works were approved. It said it had now confirmed the works with its contractor and would advise of the repair timescales when it was able to do so.
  11. We asked the landlord to provide evidence of its communication to leaseholders during the S.20 consultation. On 16 December 2024 it explained to us that it did not carry out a S.20 consultation and instead, paid for the repairs itself. The landlord was entitled to change its position on the S.20 consultation process to pay for works itself. However, there was no evidence to support its explanation that the S.20 consultation caused delays to complete repairs, as it stated in its step 3 response.
  12. Equally, throughout the complaint, the resident had to repeatedly ask for updates. While we understand that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs. The landlord missed several opportunities to take ownership of the repairs over that period, which meant that it did not monitor and progress the repairs in a timely manner. Neither did it advise the resident the reason for the delays were due to S.20 consultation despite her regular contact. The lack of communication with the resident and length of time the repairs were outstanding was inappropriate.
  13. The landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced in its step 3 response. Its complaint policy said it aimed to learn from complaints, we would therefore expect the landlord to have applied this in its handling of the repairs after its final response.
  14. The landlord’s repair records confirmed the roof renewal was completed on 2 May 2023. This was 18 months since the resident first reported the repair, and 5 months after it approved the repairs quote.
  15. The landlord did not complete internal repairs to the damage caused by the water ingress until 6 September 2023, this was 21 months after the resident first reported her concerns of property damage because of water ingress to the landlord. These delays were significant and exceeded the landlord’s repairs policy timescales for planned repairs. This was evidence of a serious failing.
  16. On 11 December 2024, we asked the landlord to provide further evidence of the communication it had with the resident because there was limited evidence in the information provided. On 16 December 2024 the landlord said it had already provided copies of all its communication and there was no further evidence to provide.
  17. The repair records show it took 5 months to complete the roof works. Within this time, we would expect the landlord to have had communication with the resident by way of updates, reasoning for the extensive timeframe and providing new timescales. Where the landlord cannot show this, it is evidence it had not learnt from the complaint in the way it handled the repairs and communication with the resident. This was evidence of a further failing.
  18. The lack of communication can also be shown within internal correspondence from the landlord’s surveyor on 24 May 2023. They said:

a.     There were months of no communication from its contractor and the landlord’s roofing team when they requested updates on completion of the roof works.

b.     It was “evident no repairs had been carried out despite the leaseholder reporting them”.

c.      It should be responsible for the internal damage to the property as it failed to maintain the roof.

  1. While the landlord’s step 3 response offered £400 compensation for its roof repair failures and apologised for the delays, it did not fully recognise the impact to the resident or learn from the complaint. As a result of the landlord’s failings, the resident had to live in a property with a damaged roof, water ingress and associated damage for approximately 21 months before it was resolved. There was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof repairs and water ingress.
  2. While the compensation award went some way to put matters right, taking into consideration its cumulative failures and the delays associated with the works, the award is not proportionate with our financial remedy scale. Therefore, a further award of compensation has been ordered in recognition of this.
  3. We are also aware the landlord had completed a paragraph 54.g review in October 2024 about its repairs and contractor management processes, in addition to how it communicates with its residents. We have therefore not made any further order on this basis.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operated a 3-stage complaint process for leaseholders at the time of the complaint. It is noted the landlord has completed a self-assessment against the latest version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which came into force on 1 April 2024. We have not made an order for the landlord to review its complaints policy and ensure that it is Code compliant.
  2. It’s complaint policy provided a timescale of 20 working days to issue a formal response at steps 2 and 3. It explained the timescale could be extended depending on the complexity of the complaint.
  3. On 22 August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. It provided its step 2 response on 13 October 2022. This was a delay of approximately 7 weeks. On 3 October 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to step 3. It provided its response on 5 January 2023. This was a delay of approximately 3 months.
  4. Both formal complaint responses were issued to the resident outside of its complaints policy timescales, which was not appropriate. While its policy allowed an extension to provide a response, there was no evidence it communicated the new timescales with the resident to manage her expectations. This was evidence of a failing.
  5. The landlord did not recognise the impact caused to the resident by the delay, or that it had left her in the complaints process without a clear time for a resolution. However, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures across both complaint responses went some way to put things right. Considering this, there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of roof repairs and water ingress.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.

b.     Pay the resident a total of £1,200 compensation comprised of:

  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould.
  2. £400 for time and trouble caused by its handling of the damp and mould.
  3. £200 it offered to the resident for complaint handling failings in its step 3 response dated 5 January 2023.
  4. If it has already paid the resident £600 compensation it offered at step 3, this should be deducted from the total above, meaning that the difference of £600 is now due.
  1. The landlord should provide compliance with the above orders.