Connexus Homes Limited (202311069)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311069

Connexus Homes Limited

18 February 2025

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 that:
1. A tile had come off the roof.
2. The tile had broken her car windscreen and she wanted compensation for this.
3. She had concerns about a staff members conduct.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a joint assured tenant at the property since 26 December 2011. She lives in the property, which is a 2-bedroom house, with the joint tenant and a child who was 12 years old at the time of the complaint. There are no vulnerabilities within the household and the landlord’s records reflect this. Both tenants liaised with the landlord throughout the process. However, for clarity, we have written the report as though the resident made all contact.
On Sunday 4 June 2023 the resident told the landlord that a tile had come off the roof in high winds and smashed her car windscreen. The landlord logged a repair job to replace the roof tile on 5 June 2023. The resident called and emailed it that day to ask for updates and provided photographs of the damaged car.
The resident called the landlord again on 6 June 2023 and it arranged for an operative to attend the following day. On 7 June 2023 she told it that the operatives had attended. However, they had stayed in the van for 20 minutes and then taken the roof tile and left. She was unhappy because she had taken the day off work for no reason. She asked for someone more senior, or her housing officer to call her back.
A housing officer called her back the same day and explained that the operative had checked the roof from the ground and ordered a replacement tile. The resident called the landlord again and it told her that she could not claim from its insurance because “it had not been negligent in any way”. It advised the resident to make a claim through her own insurance.
The resident complained on 9 June 2023. She said that:
1. When she reported the incident, the landlord told her that it would contact her within 4 hours. However, when she called on 6 June 2023 it told her that it had arranged an appointment to carry out the repair on 18 July 2023. No-one had informed her about the appointment and she had thought it was treating the repair as an emergency.
2. The landlord then told her that the reason for the delay was because the operative would need ladders. However, when an operative attended the next day, they just took the tile away without using ladders or carrying out any safety checks.
3. The housing officer that called her back had a “dismissive attitude” and was unprofessional.
4. She felt the landlord was responsible for the damage to her car and should pay compensation for the damage caused.
5. Someone should attend to inspect the roof to prevent a serious accident.
The landlord replaced the roof tile on 20 June 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 12 June 2023 and provided a response on 22 June 2023. It said that:
1. Its out of hours service did not class the fallen tile as an emergency. It triaged the repair the following day and decided it was routine. It said this was correct and in accordance with its repair policy. However, it apologised that it did not tell her about the appointment it made for 18 July 2023.
2. The operative that attended would have assessed the roof while sitting in the van and could tell from there that the roof was generally in good order.
3. It had already answered her query about damage to the car and its position had not changed.
4. The housing officer had appointments to attend and made the resident aware that she needed to end the call. However, this was only after she had responded to her concerns. It understood that the resident was frustrated because she wanted to speak to a manager but the housing officer gave the correct information and acted professionally. It apologised that it had not directed her query to the correct colleague initially and it would raise this at the next team meeting.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 28 July 2023. She said that:
1. The landlord was responsible for the damage to her car because the tile had not been secured properly.
2. The landlord had not acted in line with its repairs policy which said that it would treat dangerous roof tiles as an emergency repair. It also said that it would respond, make safe or complete emergency repairs within 24 hours.
3. She said that her ceiling now had a stain on it caused by water leaking in through the roof because of the missing tile.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 24 August 2023. It said:
1. It had no record of any reports that the tile was loose prior to it coming off. The resident should therefore claim for this via her home insurance.
2. Its policy did state that it would respond to dangerous loose roof tiles. However, it also said that contractors would not carry out work that would put them in danger. In this instance as there was only a single tile fallen and no overhanging or loose tiles on the roof it had not classified the job as an emergency. It apologised that it had been unable to communicate this with her.
3. Because she had expressed further concerns on 6 June 2023 it had sent operatives on 7 June 2023. It assured her that they had assessed the condition of the tiles, taken photographs and deemed the roof to be safe.
4. It had inspected the water mark on 15 June 2023 and found the loft space to be dry. It had resolved the repair to the roof appropriately. However, it offered a £35 decoration voucher to rectify the water mark.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman does not determine liability for damages or award damages in the way that a court might. Therefore, we are unable to determine liability for the damage to the resident’s car or order compensation for this issue.
We will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement due to damaged belongings and whether the landlord handled this reasonably and in line with its policy and procedures.

Roof tile

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe. An example given in the policy of an emergency repair is “dangerous loose roof tiles”. The policy goes on to say that contractors will not carry out any emergency work that will put them in danger, giving the example of roof repairs after dark or in severe weather conditions.
There is evidence that the resident called the landlord back 3 times for an update after she initially reported the repair. This was because she expected the landlord to class the repair as an emergency. She told it that she had expected a 4-hour response. However, we have seen no evidence that it responded to tell her that it was not treating the repair as an emergency. Or that it could not carry out repairs because it was dark or unsafe to do so due to the weather.
The landlord concluded that the repair was not an emergency based on the out of hours call. However, it is unclear how it decided this. Given that the location of the fallen tile was somewhere that household members or delivery drivers might be exposed to, it is unclear how the landlord assessed the risk at this stage. It also did not communicate its decision effectively to the resident. This communications failure meant that it did not manage her expectations. She told the landlord that she was afraid that more tiles would fall which may hurt someone. The delay in the landlord’s communication regarding the urgency of the repair prolonged this distress. This failure also cost her time and trouble because she kept contacting it for an update.
When the resident called the landlord on 6 June 2023 it told her that it had booked the job in for 18 July 2023. We have seen no evidence that it tried to call or email her to advise her of this appointment. This communications failure caused the resident more distress due to her concerns that more tiles would fall and also because it was raining and there was a hole in the roof.
The resident expected the operatives that attended on 7 June 2023 to inspect the roof using ladders because the landlord had told her this would happen. However, instead, they took photographs, inspected the roof from the ground, and took the tile to order a replacement. These were reasonable actions to take. But because the resident’s expectations had been raised, she felt that the job had not been completed properly and the roof could still be dangerous. She asked to speak to a supervisor or a housing officer. The housing officer called her back but it would have been more appropriate for a repairs supervisor to return the call as they may have been able to alleviate her concerns. Had the landlord referred her query immediately to the correct person she may have felt reassured that the roof was safe but instead she had to call it back again, costing her time and trouble.
The landlord carried out another inspection of the roof and fit the replacement tile on 20 June 2023. This was a reasonable timeframe to complete the repair, considering that it had to order the tile.
The resident told the landlord that there was a water mark on the bedroom ceiling caused by rain entering the property due to the missing tile. The landlord inspected this and issued a £35 decoration voucher. We consider this to be a suitable remedy for the water mark in the circumstances.
In summary, there were failures in the landlord’s communication regarding the status of the repair, when it would attend and the actions it would take at the initial visit. Therefore, there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s report that a tile had come off the roof. This caused her distress and cost her time and trouble. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident. It must also re-offer the resident the £35 decoration voucher if she has not previously accepted it.

Car windscreen

The landlord’s compensation policy says that initially residents should be encouraged to make any claims for damages against their own home insurance. It also says that if a resident does not have home insurance and the landlord did not know or had not been alerted to the issue leading up to the damage, it would be unlikely to be deemed at fault. This would therefore be an issue for its insurers to advise and determine.
The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s request to ask it to pay compensation because the fallen tile had smashed her car windscreen. It told her to claim via her own insurance, which was the correct action to take, and in accordance with its policy.
However, we have seen no evidence that it asked whether she had her own insurance. Furthermore, the landlord told the resident that it was not liable. While its policy says that it would be unlikely to be liable in the circumstances, it also says that this would be up to insurers to determine. This error and failure to follow its policy meant that the resident felt that she had not been given the correct advice. This cost her time and trouble making a complaint.
Due to this there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for the broken car windscreen. We have made an order for it to pay £50 compensation to the resident to reflect the time and trouble this caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Staff conduct

The resident complained about a staff member’s conduct over the telephone. We will not form a view on whether the actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, we will decide whether the landlord investigated and responded to her concerns, and took proportionate action based on the information available. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an independent investigation so that it can reach an informed and therefore fair and reasonable decision on the complaint raised.
We have seen internal notes relating to a discussion that a supervisor had with the staff member who called the resident on 7 June 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss this with the staff member and get their version of events. It was also appropriate for it to not divulge the details of these discussions to the resident. We consider that the landlord’s actions were appropriate in the circumstances.
There is evidence that the landlord also listened to any relevant call recordings that were available as part of its investigation. This was also an appropriate action to take.
The landlord responded to this part of the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised that the staff member dealing with the matter had not been the most appropriate person to answer her queries. We consider that its investigation into the matter was proportionate, considering the nature of the issues raised.
Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports that she was dissatisfied with a staff members conduct.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that “a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.”
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord told the resident that it had already responded to her about the broken windscreen and its position had not changed. The complaint handler should have independently investigated how it dealt with the initial enquiry about this and included the findings of the investigation in the complaint response. However, they failed to do so. This was a missed opportunity to check that it had complied with its policies and provided the correct advice to the resident. This complaint handling failure cost the resident time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint.
Due to this error, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have made an order for it to pay the resident £35 compensation for the time and trouble this caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports that a tile had come off the roof.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports that the tile had broken her car windscreen and she wanted compensation for this.
3. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a staff members conduct.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay compensation of £235 directly to the resident, comprising:
1. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the roof tile repair.
2. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble due to its handling of her request for compensation for the car windscreen.
3. £35 for the resident’s time and trouble due to the complaint handling failure.
4. It must also re-offer the £35 decoration voucher to the resident if she has not already accepted it.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide a briefing note to staff dealing with compensation claims for damage to residents’ belongings. This is to embed its compensation policy and ensure that a similar error does not occur in the future.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review how it currently risk assesses falling roof tiles remotely. This is to ensure that it has robust measures in place to ensure that it fully documents this assessment and considers all the circumstances of the case. It should also ensure that staff are aware of the importance of communicating its decision regarding how it prioritised the repair to residents as quickly as possible.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.