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

Harlow District Council (202341933)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341933

Harlow District Council

10 July 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 the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof of his property.

Background

  1. The resident and his wife have a joint secured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette. The resident lives with his wife and 4 children. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded but the resident advised this Service that he has asthma.
  2. In 2021 the resident made a disrepair claim which was settled out of court by a settlement agreement in August 2022. The settlement agreement was for £1000 damages, legal costs, repair works to be completed within 56 days and a roof replacement to be carried out in Spring 2023. The parties could not agree on the amount of the legal costs, so the resident’s solicitor filed a claim form with the court and a court order was granted for the landlord to pay the resident’s legal costs.
  3. On 12 October 2023 the resident’s wife emailed the landlord advising that the temporary fix on the roof was no longer watertight and water was dripping from the ceiling in the back bedroom. The resident also raised a repair request via the landlord’s online portal, but this was rejected, and the landlord advised on 17 October via a message on the portal that the resident needed to ring the call centre for roofing jobs.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 6 January 2024. He said the roof replacement had not been carried out in line with the settlement agreement and the sheet covering the roof had been damaged by the storm. The resident said rain was coming into the children’s bedroom and had damaged the children’s belongings. He said his children’s bedroom was a “death trap” and he wanted the roof fixed.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 January 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it acknowledged it was outside of the timescales agreed for the roof replacement, for which it apologised, but said it had followed the correct procedures each time an issue with the roof had been reported. The landlord acknowledged how the roof leak had affected the resident’s mental and physical health. It said it took the health and safety of all its residents very seriously. The landlord said the resident had reported the roof leak on 12 January 2024. It stated scaffolding had been erected to carry out an assessment of the roof to determine the best course of action to keep the property watertight until the roof replacement occurred. The landlord said the works for the temporary fix would commence shortly after the inspection.
  6. On 24 January 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. He was dissatisfied as he said the stage 1 complaint contained an incorrect timeline and the roof repair was not completed. The resident requested the landlord fix the roof or relocate him and his family. Also on 24 January 2024, the landlord’s legal department reopened the housing disrepair claim file because the resident’s solicitor had been in contact as the settlement agreement had been breached. The resident’s solicitor said the agreement had been breached because the timescale for the roof replacement had not been met.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 February 2024. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it said the stage 1 complaint had been upheld. The landlord said scaffolding had been erected on 16 January 2024 and work was due to start on 13 February 2024, if weather permitted. This work was to remove the sheeting and find a solution to keep the property watertight until the roof was replaced under the landlord’s roof replacement programme. The landlord said the pre-contract meeting with the roof replacement contractor was scheduled for 19 February 2024. After this meeting the landlord said an order would be raised with the contractor and the start date for the roof replacement would follow once the contractor had scheduled in the work.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 19 February 2024. He said the sheeting put over the roof had become damaged and was no longer watertight which had caused black mould in the children’s bedroom and had affected his asthma. The resident said his mental health had been affected by the roof leak which had resulted in him being signed off work since 5 January 2024. He said the landlord had stated that he had not reported the damage to the roof until 12 January 2024 which he disputed. The resident said scaffolding had been erected but no work had started yet. He wanted the damage to the roof repaired and to be rehoused until the repairs were complete as he feared the children’s bedroom ceiling might collapse. Subsequently, a second settlement agreement was reached between the landlord and the resident via their solicitors in March 2024. This settlement agreement awarded the resident £1000 for damages and committed to the roof replacement being completed in June 2024.  Both parties advised this Service that the roof replacement was completed in June 2024 in line with the settlement agreement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident referenced in his correspondence to the landlord and this Service that his physical and mental health had been affected by the roof leak. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these health problems, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident and his family’s health.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, he should do so via this route.  This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.
  3. The resident advised this Service that the landlord had not completed the roof replacement in line with the timescale agreed in the settlement agreement reached between the landlord’s and resident’s solicitors in August 2022. This Service does not have the authority to enforce legal settlements. Paragraph 42f of the Scheme states, “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. Therefore, if the resident wishes to address the breach of the settlement agreement made in August 2022 or anything relating to his disrepair claim, he should pursue this through court. This investigation focuses on the events between 12 October 2023 when the resident’s wife reported the roof leak and June 2024 when the roof replacement was completed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof of his property.

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states it will keep the resident’s home in “good condition and repair and maintain the structure and outside of the building”. This includes roofs. The landlord also has repair obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy deems a property that is not watertight as an “urgent” repair which should be completed within 5 working days. The policy states, “Temporary works may be required with full replacements on planned programme”.
  3. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  4. The resident’s block of maisonettes needed a new roof and was placed on the landlord’s roof replacement programme. Sheeting had been put over the roof to make the property watertight until the roof was replaced. On 12 October 2023 the resident’s wife emailed the landlord stating the sheeting over the roof was no longer watertight and water was dripping from the ceiling in the back bedroom. The resident said his wife did not receive a response to her email, so they raised a repair request on the landlord’s portal. There was no evidence to show the landlord replied to the resident’s wife’s email. However, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to not respond to the email immediately as it would receive many emails and have a policy of a number of working days within which it needed to respond.
  5. The resident’s repair request was rejected on the portal. The landlord sent a message to the resident via the portal on 17 October 2023 which stated the resident needed to contact the call centre about roofing jobs. The evidence showed that the resident rang the landlord on 24 October 2023. A job was raised for a visit to the property and for the internal contractor to complete a temporary repair in the loft. A temporary repair to the loft to prevent water ingress was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states, “Temporary works may be required with full replacements on planned programme”. This Service was unable to establish from the evidence when the work to the loft was completed so cannot determine if the landlord acted in accordance with the timescales within its repairs policy.
  6. The resident experienced another leak in January 2024 prior to making his complaint on 6 January 2024. It is unclear from the evidence on what date this further leak occurred, but a contractor attended the property on 5 January 2024 and on this date the landlord offered the resident and his family temporary accommodation until the roof was fixed. The offer of temporary accommodation was appropriate and reasonable. The resident declined the temporary accommodation. He stated, “with my mental health straining currently I was advised against it as it could potentially set me back with the added stress of living out of a suitcase, not having familiar things around me and also if they split the family up could send me in a downward spiral”.
  7. On 9 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord stating, “As I was in my children’s bedroom today part of the ceiling had fallen on me, this is becoming a more health and safety issue now”. The resident attached photos of the damage to the ceiling. The evidence showed the landlord instructed the internal contractor to attend the property as a matter of urgency due to health and safety concerns and requested the ceiling was looked at that day to ensure it was safe. This was appropriate and treated the matter with the urgency it required.
  8. Due to this further roof leak the landlord decided to remove the temporary sheeting on the roof which had become loose and had been damaged. It said it would “carry out a more suitable repair to keep the property watertight”. On 12 January 2024 a job was raised for scaffolding to be erected and a roofing contractor to carry out a joint inspection with the internal contractor. This was raised as urgent which was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy which states a property that is not watertight is an “urgent” repair. The scaffolding was promptly erected 2 working days later, on 16 January 2024.
  9. It was unclear when the joint inspection with the internal contractor and the roofing contractor occurred. This appeared to have been slightly delayed as the evidence showed the internal contractor did not contact the roofing contractor to arrange the joint inspection until 23 January 2024. This was 6 working days after the scaffolding had been erected. The roofing contractor suggested 1 February 2024 for the joint inspection which was 12 working days after the scaffolding was erected. The evidence did not show whether the landlord agreed to this date or when the joint inspection was carried out. However, this took place prior to 9 February 2024 as on this date landlord internal emails confirmed the repair work was taking place “next week”. The landlord confirmed this in its stage 2 response, it advised the resident that “scaffolding has been erected with the work due to commence on 13 February 2024 weather permitting, to remove the sheeting and find a more suitable solution of keeping your property watertight until the roof can be replaced”. It was not clear from the evidence on what date this work was completed.
  10. In an email to the landlord on 10 January 2024, the resident expressed his concerns about his children being exposed to mould because of the leaks from the roof. He also stated it was “unacceptable to expect anyone to live in these conditions”. When the resident raised these concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reiterated its offer of moving the resident and his family into temporary accommodation. However, there was no evidence to show the landlord did this.
  11. Another property inspection occurred on 26 January 2024 and mould was identified at the property. A mould wash was arranged for 29 January 2024. This was appropriate and was a prompt response when mould was identified. However, this property inspection took place 17 calendar days after the resident raised his concerns of mould in the property. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. Given the severity of the roof leaks and the property’s history of damp and mould which was addressed in the resident’s historical disrepair claim, it would have been a more proportionate response to have expedited the property inspection.
  12. The resident advised this Service that he had asthma. This would have been another reason for the landlord to have expedited an inspection when the resident advised there was mould in the property. However, the landlord appeared not to be aware of the resident’s vulnerability because this Service was told there were no known vulnerabilities when the landlord was asked about vulnerability in the evidence request for this case. As set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management, recording vulnerabilities is the first step in providing a sensitive and responsive service. This information must be kept up to date, be accessible, and be shared and used appropriately. The landlord did not appropriately record the household’s vulnerabilities.
  13. The landlord upheld the resident’s stage 1 complaint as there had been delays in starting the roof replacement programme. Despite the landlord upholding the resident’s complaint, one of the reasons the resident escalated his complaint was because he stated the landlord’s response included an “incorrect timeline”. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated the resident had contacted it about a roof leak on 12 January 2024, after he made his complaint. This was not accurate as the resident and his wife had contacted the landlord about roof leaks prior to 12 January 2024. The evidence showed the resident, or his wife, had reported roof leaks 6 times between 12 October 2023 and 9 January 2024. This Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case when a complaint is raised. It was evident from the complaint responses the landlord issued that this did not happen which caused the resident frustration.
  14. While the temporary repair was being progressed the roof replacement work was also being progressed. Landlord internal emails confirmed a roof replacement contractor was selected by 16 January 2024 and a pre-contract meeting was held on 19 February 2024. A 16-week roof replacement programme was undertaken, and both the landlord and the resident have confirmed the roof replacement was completed in June 2024.
  15. The evidence showed a second settlement agreement was reached between the landlord’s and resident’s solicitors in March 2024. This was outside of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The agreement was for the roof replacement to be completed by 4 June 2024 and £1,000 damages. The financial settlement was proportionate to the distress, inconvenience and detriment experienced by the resident.
  16. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving the complaint. This is because the landlord acknowledged the delay in the roof replacement being completed and apologised for this. It offered the resident and his family temporary accommodation. The landlord awarded the resident £1000 in a legal settlement which has already been paid to the resident. It should be noted that the amount awarded to the resident by the landlord in the settlement agreement exceeded what this Service would likely have awarded for the oversights identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof of his property, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording of vulnerabilities and to ensure consideration is given to these when dealing with cases of damp and mould. The landlord should consider, if it has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.