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

Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited (202222720)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222720

Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited

28 March 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 landlords handling of repairs to fix a leak in the resident’s ceiling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. The neighbour directly above the resident has a balcony, which sits on top of the resident’s living room. On 9 November 2022, the resident reported a leak coming from the balcony, into the living room.
  2. The landlord carried out several inspections to both properties over the following days. The resident complained on 24 November 2022, about the length of time the repair was taking and chased the landlord on 5 December 2022.
  3. On 13 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, explaining the challenges it had encountered which had led to the delays so far. It offered £50 compensation as a goodwill gesture and £15 for delays in dealing with her complaint. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s explanation and escalated the complaint on 16 December 2022.
  4. On 20 December 2022, the resident reported a worsening of the leak. The landlord attended that evening and again the next morning, advising the resident that the ceiling might give way. The ceiling gave way on 22 December 2022, after which the landlord attended and fitted temporary sheeting to make safe the ceiling. The resident approached the Ombudsman the same day.
  5. The landlord attended both properties on several occasions in January 2023. Investigations were inconclusive and it determined that scaffolding would be required. It issued a stage 2 response on 24 January 2023. It apologised for the delays and gave a number of reasons, including that it had wrongly categorised the repair as “routine”, rather than urgent, and that it had experienced access issues at the neighbouring property, but admitted that its contractor was “unable to confirm” how it had communicated the appointment with the neighbour. It paid £365 compensation for the delays and paid an additional £155 to replace the resident’s curtains, which she said had been ruined.
  6. The leak appeared to be fixed on 31 January 2023, which was confirmed by a water test on 3 February 2023. On 9 February 2023 the resident reported significant improvement, but that some ingress was still present.
  7. On 9 May 2023, the resident wrote to the Ombudsman stating that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response, because the repairs remained outstanding. A water test was done again on 26 May 2023, showing a leak still present. Further works took place on 7 June 2023, but were ineffective. The resident complained again on 19 June 2023 about the length of time taken, poor communication and mould in the living room. On 24 July 2023 the landlord issued a further stage 1 response. It provided a timeline which outlined the reasons for the delays and offered £200 compensation in light of “evidence of maladministration” by the landlord. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 August 2023, disputing elements of the landlord’s timeline and citing a loss of enjoyment of her home.
  8. Further works took place in August 2023 and a surveyor inspected the leak on 24 August 2023. It stated that there was “no evident leaks” during the test, but remarked that damp was still present, though there were explanations for this which did not rule out that the repair had been effective. The landlord issued its stage 2 response the same day. It apologised again, offered £565 compensation and concluded that the repair was now complete.
  9. The surveyor reattended on 7 September 2023 and concluded that although the works had made an improvement, a leak was still present. Works followed in September and October. On 10 October 2023, contractors noted that a leak was still present. The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 5 March 2024 to advise that further works were ongoing. The current status of the leak is unknown.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to fix a leak in the resident’s ceiling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’, and to ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. Across the two internal complaint procedures (ICP) completed by the resident, the landlord provided detail of some of the reasons behind the delays, which were multifaceted. The evidence shows that the landlord’s account was largely accurate, though a few minor details were disputed by the resident. The key consideration to account for is that the leak itself has proven to be complex both to locate and effectively seal. Tackling the leak required the involvement of multiple parties and organisations, including the neighbour, the original developer and contractors. The nature of the leak, which appears to have resulted from a latent defect for which the developer has since taken responsibility, provided a unique challenge for the contractors. There were further delays outside the landlord’s control, such as the need to wait for good weather to conduct water tests and the need to erect scaffolding. However, the landlord was right in its second stage 2 response to acknowledge that there had been “evidence of maladministration”, which included failings like assigning the wrong priority level to the repair, miscommunications in raising works with contractors and at times a lack of clear communication with the resident and neighbour, leading to delays from the resulting access issues.
  3. There were also periods where the landlord and indeed the resident believed the leak to have been fixed. The resident was unhappy at times that there were delays in commencing remedial works to the property. However, the evidence shows that the landlord appeared to hold off on remedial works until its surveyors could be satisfied that the leak was fixed, which was appropriate.
  4. The landlord’s final stage 2 response of 29 August 2023 was based on the surveyor’s report of 24 August 2023, which indicated the leak was likely to have been resolved. It was right to schedule a further survey on 7 September 2023. The landlord offered £565 compensation, taking the total amount offered to £930 for delays from November 2022 to August 2023, in line with its compensation policy. The evidence shows that during this time the resident experienced frustration, time and trouble, and a loss of enjoyment of her living room. Accounting for the delays outside of the landlord’s control and the complex nature of the issue, the compensation offered by the landlord provided reasonable redress and adequately put things right. The landlord also demonstrated its ability to be fair, both by being transparent with its failings in its complaint responses, and by agreeing to pay £155 to replace the resident’s curtains in January 2023.
  5. It was found on 7 September 2023 however that the leak had not been rectified. The resident had previously expressed dissatisfaction with the workmanship, which is understandable given the number of unsuccessful attempts to repair the leak. However, there is no evidence that the landlord’s choice of contractor or the workmanship itself contributed to the ineffective repairs which were carried out; as above, the issue appeared to relate to a slab laid during the construction of the property, repairs to which were complex and challenging.
  6. The evidence seen from after this point however casts doubt upon the landlord’s ability to effectively learn from outcomes. For example, one of the contributing factors to delays had been access issues, primarily to the neighbour’s property. The landlord acknowledged however that there was no evidence that prior contact had been made by the contractor to arrange access. The resident had complained that “the landlord had failed to effectively manage its contractors”. Although there is evidence that the landlord communicated with contractors regularly, the evidence supports that the landlord did not retain much central oversight of the project and instead delegated this to a team of surveyors and contractors.
  7. After the leak recurred again on 7 September 2023, the landlord should have considered adjusting its approach to ensure it minimised avoidable delays. There is no evidence that this happened, as in October 2023 it again experienced access issues at the neighbouring property. It would have been prudent for the landlord to establish an agreement with the neighbour regarding access, however the evidence suggests that it was again left to the contractor, which appeared to do so at short notice resulting in difficulties making contact. When the Ombudsman contacted the landlord in March 2024, it explained that works remained ongoing but that it was being managed by “the surveyor and contractors”. This suggests that the landlord has not increased its level of oversight as may have been appropriate.
  8. Communication with the resident was also lacking at times, with the resident regularly required to chase for information. Although the evidence shows that generally during these periods matters were in hand, the resident had not been informed of the progress, causing frustration and incurring time and trouble. The landlord adequately addressed this during the ICP by apologising and offering apportioned compensation for “time and trouble”. However, it’s pledge to “continue to implement and imbed robust processes to improve our communication” appeared to be ineffective. It added that it has had no contact with the resident directly since October 2023. The reasons for this are unclear, but if the lanrd was unable to reach the resident bey telephone, written updates should be provided. . In conclusion, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a roof leak.
  9. The Ombudsman has been unable to contact the resident since this investigation began, therefore any ongoing adverse effect she may have experienced since the last stage 2 response of August 2023 is unknown. Orders are made below however to ensure that the landlord proactively establishes contact with the resident and investigates any further concerns she may have. It should then seek to put things right, in line with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman also does not feel that it would be helpful in this case, given the nature of the issue and the attempts the landlord has already made to put things right, to order the repairs to be completed within a set timescale. It should however review the works and provide feedback to the Ombudsman, as set out in the ‘orders’ section of this report, below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to fix a leak in the resident’s ceiling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Contact the resident regarding her experience since the leak recurred in September 2023 and establish if she has any outstanding concerns. It should deal with these concerns in line with its complaints policy. If the landlord identifies any failings, it should put right any adverse effect experienced by the resident, in line with its compensation policy.
    2. Write to the Ombudsman setting out the reasons for the delays from September 2023 to present in repairing the leak. If the leak remains outstanding, it must produce an action plan setting out what it intends to do to bring the works to a conclusion.
    3. Pay the resident the compensation offered via its responses to the complaint, if it has not already done so.