Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202334079)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334079

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 September 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak through the roof.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a joint shared owner of the property, which is a flat. The flat is within a block owned by the landlord. The resident’s flat is on the third floor and has a flat roof above it, accessible through a hatch in the communal area of the building. The block differs in height and there is a fourth floor adjacent to the resident’s roof.
The resident initially reported a leak through the roof into her property in December 2017. She previously raised a formal complaint in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repair in 2020 as this was ongoing and causing damage to the property. The landlord’s records from the time show that the roof was inspected on 7 June 2021, and it was confirmed that a patch repair had resolved the leak. This complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in June 2021. It accepted that there had been unacceptable delays and said that internal works would be the resident’s responsibility under the terms of the lease. It provided details of its liability insurance provider and offered £550 compensation, which included an element for its complaint handling.
The resident has advised that she informed the landlord the leak was ongoing in September 2021 following her previous complaint. She has provided evidence that the previous complaint handler responded to her on 11 September 2021 and said they would ask a repairs officer to inspect the roof and that she would be contacted to arrange a date.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident pursued her concerns on at least 9 occasions in 2022. The landlord acknowledged that she had raised a complaint in February 2022, and she continued to chase updates in February, March, July, August (when an inspection was due to take place) and November 2022. The landlord’s repair records show that an inspection was reported as completed on 2 December 2022 and was referred to the landlord due to a specialist being needed. Other flats in the building were also reporting leaks into their properties around the same time and into 2023. A repair was reported as completed to the roof on 27 June 2023 which noted a different property number in the job description.
The resident asked for her previous complaint to be re-raised on 25 August 2023 and said she was dissatisfied that the previous complaint was closed despite the repair and compensation not being resolved. She explained that a roof repair was initially raised in December 2017 but had not been completed. There had been various attempts to seal water entry points, but these did not resolve the leak. In December 2022, she was told a camera would be needed to establish where the water was entering. She had learned that a specialist roofing company had completed repairs to another section of roof on the fourth floor, but her repair details were not passed on. Her repair had now been marked as complete which was not the case. She said that this was not the first time her roof leak had been added to other reports despite her explaining that the roof above her flat was not the “main” (fourth floor) roof. She raised specific concern that:
1. When contacting the landlord, some staff did not specify where the repair was in the building or understand the flats were broken into blocks, which resulted in repairs being logged incorrectly. Only experienced staff had the system knowledge and took time to look at the main and sub–block notes.
2. If she tried to re-log the repair online, it was deleted as it was assumed it was the same leak others had reported for other parts of the building.
3. She had been unable to contact her previous complaint officer since September 2021.
4. She felt a phone call to clarify whether a repair was completed should form part of the landlord’s procedures.
5. She had been told that she could claim for damage inside the flat once the repairs were completed but as the repair had taken over 5 years, she was no longer able to claim via buildings insurance. She sought compensation for the costs of repairing damage in her flat.
6. She was offered £550 compensation as part of a previous stage 2 complaint response if she signed a form to say this was the end of the matter. She was not prepared to sign this as the repair issue was unresolved.
The landlord initially acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 September 2023 and said it could look at the roof repairs from 2021 onwards but would not overlap the previous complaint. It noted her concerns about a lack of communication from the complaint handler but said that these would not be investigated as they were addressed in the original stage 2 response. It had also addressed her concerns related to insurance and confirmed that the resident was responsible for making a claim, so this would not be investigated. It added that the resident had not accepted its previous offer of compensation, and it would not re-offer this. It confirmed that once it had all the necessary information, it would provide a stage 1 complaint response.
The resident responded and confirmed that she had not signed the form for the compensation as it had asked her to sign that the matter had been resolved when it had not. She noted that there was communication with the complaint handler following the previous stage 2 complaint response about the ongoing leak. She added that she had not claimed via insurance because the repair had not been completed.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2023 and explained:
1. It would not investigate the resident’s concerns related to insurance or its previous offer of compensation for the reasons set out above.
2. The first roof repair was raised on 13 April 2021 and attended to on 12 May 2021 where the lead flashing was re-fitted. No further issues were raised until 13 November 2022 for a leak affecting the flat and communal areas. This was attended to on 2 December 2022 and follow-on works were found to be needed by a specialist contractor. Another flat reported being affected by a leak on 13 December 2022 and this was attended on 4 January and 24 February 2023 before being referred to the specialist roofer.
3. It received a quote from its roofing contractor on 3 March 2023 which was approved on 29 March 2023. Works were then completed on 27 June 2023. The resident had then raised works on 24 August 2023, and this was allocated to its specialist on 6 September 2023. It confirmed that it allowed its contractor 90 days to complete bespoke work. The target completion date was 5 December 2023. It acknowledged that while there had been multiple reports of leaks over the years, there had not been a service failure in its response time.
4. Its system allowed staff to determine which block and sub–block the property was a part of when a resident reported a repair. It apologised that the resident felt staff she had spoken to did not have this knowledge and it had passed her feedback on. It confirmed that only its “tier 2” agents had the ability to check its system notes for both the main and sub-blocks.
5. It added that where repairs were logged online, if the details being logged were the same or “sounded like” an existing repair underway, the new repair would be cancelled until it could establish whether a different repair was needed. In response to the resident’s request that it informed residents when a repair was completed, it said that this was not possible due to the number of repairs it logged each month, and the time demands on its staff where hundreds of residents are involved. It confirmed that it had a new system launching in October 2023 which would combat concerns caused by its notes.
6. It had spoken to the previous complaint handler who said that they had not heard from the resident (following the previous complaint) until August 2022. They could not provide evidence that they had responded to her, but the resident had not provided evidence of emails that were not responded to.
7. It did not uphold the complaint as there had been no service failures in its response time to the roof repairs or in the conduct of its property team. However, it took the resident’s word that she had not been responded to within a sufficient timeframe and apologised for the delays. It offered £75 compensation for poor complaint handling and confirmed she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 11 November 2023 and said that the response was factually incorrect. She added that she was under the impression her first complaint was still open, and that the response quoted repairs that were not relevant. She confirmed that the roof had not been repaired and was told that the landlord was looking to raise a claim with the builders of the block. She asked if this would delay the repairs and said that her complaint remained unresolved.
The landlord’s records show that a repair was raised on 16 November 2023 to apply repair tape to areas of the roof as per a report it had received. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the report.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 March 2024 and explained the following:
1. Its complaints coordinator had followed process in keeping the resident informed about the status of the complaint, but it had extended the complaint deadline on numerous occasions which was taken into consideration as part of its compensation offer.
2. It noted that the target date for the roof works was 5 December 2023. Its contractor had attempted to resolve the leak, but they were unable to access the area due to a lock on the roof hatch. A new job was raised to change the lock. Following this, further information was needed as there was confusion over where the work was required which resulted in several other jobs being raised.
3. Its contractors had now been made aware of the correct location and information about the specification of work required. In order to complete the work, it required access to the roof through another property and it had struggled to make contact with the occupant. It had passed this to its housing team to make sure that the work arranged for 20 March 2024 could go ahead.
4. It had previously provided information related to its liability insurance provider and confirmed that it was the resident’s responsibility to make a claim. It had attached this information again should the resident be unable to claim via her own insurance provider.
5. It upheld the complaint and offered £475 compensation, comprised of £75 offered at stage 1, £150 for its poor complaint handling at stage 2, and £250 for the resident’s time and trouble and the length of time it had taken to form an action plan and identify the correct location of the leak. It would not honour the previous compensation offer of £550 as this was not accepted within 6 months of its June 2021 complaint response.

Events after the end of the complaints process

The landlord has advised that repairs to the roof were undertaken on 20 March 2024. Throughout April and May 2024, several other flats reported leaks and on 3 May 2024, following an inspection of another flat, the job notes showed that the landlord was aware that the leak continued to affect the resident’s property.
The resident informed the Ombudsman in May 2024 that the water continued to pour each time it rained, and this impacted the whole flat. There was a hole in the ceiling, mould in the hallway and patches on the ceiling across the hallway, kitchen, and bathroom, as well as water running down the kitchen and hallway walls. She had been told not to use the kitchen extractor fan or lights and needed to cut a hole in the cavity wall to catch water. She had been communicating with the local authority’s Environmental Health (EH) Team but not received dates for any work.
From May 2024, the local authority’s EH Team became involved and pursued updates from the landlord on at least 5 occasions in June 2024. A repair to install roofing tape was completed on 21 June 2024 and this was then passed back to the landlord to complete a full roof survey. The landlord’s internal records from 25 June 2024 indicate that it was not sure whether the tape had been applied to the correct part of the roof, and that when it had inspected, there had been isolated punctures to the roof directly above the resident’s property. On 27 June 2024, its records show that a supervisor had attended and confirmed they were happy with the works and the tape had bonded well with the roof.
On 28 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the leak was ongoing. She asked that someone attend to explained why the temporary repair had not worked. She also noted that the ceiling dripped for weeks after it rained, suggesting that water lay under the roof covering. The resident continued to chase updates into July 2024.
The landlord’s records from 15 July 2024 indicate that it intended to inform the resident that the previous repairs were temporary, and it was seeking specification for a long-term solution. It was awaiting a second quotation and would then instruct its contractors to complete the repair. It remains unclear as to whether this communication was sent to the resident.
In its communication to the Ombudsman in August 2024, the landlord said that it had reviewed the complaint and acknowledged the significant delay in completing the repair to the roof which was not done until 20 March 2024. It said its previous complaint responses did not fully address the repair or provide a long-term fix. It also noted that the complaint handler had said there was no service failure despite the repair taking longer than 90 days. It offered an additional £100 for its poor complaint handling, £300 for its failure in service and not locating the leak in a timely manner, and £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident. It also said it would honour the £550 compensation payment it had initially offered in June 2021.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that the situation has become worse over time, she continues to experience the same leaks into the property, and she is concerned the ceiling will collapse. She added that she needs to stay home when it rains to be able to empty buckets and the situation was impacting her and her family’s life. She has confirmed that the landlord made its increased offer to her but said it has not commented on the ongoing leak or what it intends to do to resolve the problems affecting the property.
In September 2024, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that the previous repair was carried out to the 4th floor roof as the leak affecting the resident’s property was believed to have travelled down from the main 4th floor roof via a soil stack pipe. The resident has confirmed that a supervisor attended on 27 September 2024 and informed her that they had initially asked for her roof (on the third floor) to be taped. They would be arranging for the tape to be installed to the roof directly above her property in the first instance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident initially raised a complaint with the landlord in 2020 which exhausted the internal complaints process in June 2021. Under paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. The resident did not refer her complaint to the Ombudsman until 2 January 2024 despite referral rights being provided within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 10 June 2021.
Whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment does not consider the previous complaint, or the £550 compensation offered by the landlord at the time of that complaint. The landlord has now confirmed it would uphold its previous offer of compensation and a recommendation has been made below for it to pay the resident the £550 as offered at the time, if it has not already done so.
Part of the resident’s complaint also relates to damage to her property which is ongoing due to the leak. Although the Ombudsman can consider the impact of the repairs on the household and the landlord’s response, we cannot assess or award damages. This would require an assessment of liability which is best suited to be dealt with by an insurance provider or through a court or tribunal. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding insurance will be addressed within the complaints handling section below.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, and renewing the structure of the building, including the roof, external walls and pipes, as well as communal parts.
The landlord’s repairs policy provides timescales for attending different categories of repairs. Emergency repairs, including repairs to address an immediate health and safety risk, would be made safe within 24 hours. Routine repairs would be completed within 28 calendar days. Bespoke repairs, including those where a component needs replacing and must be ordered, or more complex work, should be completed within 90 calendar days of being reported. It specifies that it may need to complete an inspection before raising repairs, which would be completed within 20 calendar days of the report.
The landlord’s related guidance document states that when a repair issue is raised by a leaseholder, an order would be placed for a repair, and it would tell the leaseholder what it intends to do and tell them how soon a repair will be done. It further states that its customer service centre would monitor works from when they are reported through to completion.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak through the roof.

In this case, it is evident that the resident has experienced a leak into the property for a significant period. Within its responses to the resident’s complaint, the landlord initially advised that there had been no service failure in its response times. It subsequently apologised for the time taken to identify the correct location for the work required and for any inconvenience and frustration this caused within its stage 2 complaint response of March 2024. Within its complaint responses and its additional communication to the Ombudsman and resident in August 2024, the landlord has offered a total of £650 for this aspect of the complaint.
Following the resident’s reports of a leak into her property, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord took proactive steps to diagnose the cause of the leak by inspecting both the property and area directly above, and completing actions such as dye tests where the cause of the leak was unclear. It would also have been expected to communicate with the resident regarding the leak and to confirm how and when it would resolve the issue. Given the previous complaint regarding a leak into the property and the length of time the issue had been ongoing (there is evidence that leaks were referred to every year from 2017 to date), the landlord should have been proactive in its handling of the matter.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset and, in some cases, different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, in this case, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took adequate steps to diagnose the cause of the leak into the resident’s property. Specifically, it instead linked the leak into her property to the leaks that other residents, living on other floors, had reported even after the resident had raised concern about this approach.
There was an evident lack of communication throughout the process and no evidence to suggest that the resident was provided with clear information about the cause of the leak into her home or any reassurance as to how the matter would be put right. In addition, there is a lack of evidence to show that the repairs completed by the landlord were associated with the leak affecting the resident’s property and the landlord has not provided evidence which demonstrates how it satisfied itself that the repairs it attempted would resolve the problem.
Despite the landlord stating that there had been no delay in its response to the resident’s reports of leaks within its stage 1 complaint response, it failed to identify that it had not responded to her requests for it to communicate regarding the previously unresolved complaint from at least February 2022 (as indicated by its own records). The resident has also provided evidence to confirm that the previous complaint handler had been on notice that the leak was ongoing from 11 September 2021. Its stage 1 complaint response indicated that it did not have evidence to confirm whether it had, or had not, responded to the resident’s communication. The landlord should have systems in place to ensure communication is logged centrally and is accessible as the onus would be on it to provide an audit trail where there is disputed evidence.
The resident raised specific concerns on 11 August 2022 that the leak was ongoing and that an appointment had not been attended to. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that this matter was raised as a repair by the landlord until 8 November 2022. The landlord’s records indicate that it believed a specialist roofer was required on 2 December 2022, but there is no further evidence to demonstrate that the landlord had inspected the areas affected or considered what the cause of the leak was. There is nothing to show that it instructed a specialist roofer in relation to the resident’s reports about her property and none of the subsequent repairs listed within the landlord’s repair history (into 2023) relate to the resident’s flat number.
The landlord has referred to a repair undertaken on 27 June 2023 but none of the evidence provided to this Service indicates that this repair was linked to the leak affecting the resident’s property. The repair record for this work specifically relates to a property on a different floor within the block. There is no reference to the resident’s property as part of this repair and a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the leak into the resident’s property was in any way addressed at this stage.
The resident raised specific concern in her complaint that the repair completed in June 2023 was carried out on the fourth-floor roof and not the roof above her property. The landlord failed to demonstrate it considered this or investigated whether the repair related to her property. It inappropriately considered her ongoing reports on 24 August 2023 to be a new report of a leak. At this stage, the leak into her property had been ongoing for more than a year which was likely to cause significant inconvenience and frustration.
The resident had also raised concern that staff members did not understand the flats were broken into blocks (over different floors) which had resulted in repairs being logged incorrectly, and that only some staff members could access both the main and sub–block notes. The landlord apologised that the resident “felt” staff she had spoken to did not have this knowledge and said that all staff were trained to understand that flats were broken into blocks and sub-blocks on its system. While it was reasonable for the landlord to pass on feedback, it failed to investigate whether the repairs raised on the resident’s behalf had been done incorrectly, or to identify where there may have been a failure in service as a result.
Within its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord highlighted that when a repair was raised that “sounded like” a repair underway, this would be cancelled unless it was established that a different repair was needed. The landlord failed to comment further on whether repairs raised by the resident had been cancelled. It also failed to acknowledge that this could contribute to delays where there are multiple reports of roof leaks in different areas of a building, such as in this case.
In addition, the landlord stated that, due to the volume and complexity of “block” repairs, it was impossible to update a single resident when a repair was completed. While this is understandable for communal repairs that cause a minor impact to residents, such as repairs to lighting, it is unreasonable for a landlord not to communicate with a resident regarding a leak that directly impacts their property. It was inappropriate for the landlord to consider this solely as a block repair issue. While there may have been other reports of leaks within the block, and the landlord would have been expected to consider whether the leaks were related, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show that the leak affecting the fourth-floor roof and properties was caused by the same fault. The landlord failed to give adequate attention to the water ingress impacting the resident’s property on an individual basis which was likely to add to her frustration and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman has not seen any further evidence to show that the landlord communicated with the resident regarding the ongoing leak following its stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2023 until its stage 2 complaint response on 13 March 2024. Within the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in handling her concerns as its contractors had been unable to access the relevant roof area as it needed to go via a different property, and there was confusion over where work was required. It has provided no documentary evidence to support the actions it took during this period to investigate the leak into the resident’s property and the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the delay was in any way outside of its control.
While it confirmed that work was due to be completed on 20 March 2024 and apologised for the delay, it offered no clear explanation of what work was needed or any reassurance that the correct area of roof was due to be repaired which was likely to add to the resident’s frustration. At this stage, the leak had been ongoing for over 2 years without adequate intervention, which is an unreasonable timescale.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence related to a repair on 20 March 2024 and the landlord has not explained how it satisfied itself that the repair, if carried out on this date, would have resolved the issues affecting the resident’s property. The resident told this Service on 22 March 2024 that she had been told that the repair had been completed, and also that there had been no access on this date.
In its communication with the Ombudsman in August 2024, the landlord offered additional compensation to the resident and noted that the works were completed on 20 March 2024. It made no reference to further works undertaken since, that the resident had informed it that the leak was ongoing, or what it intends to do to put matters right.
The Ombudsman has considered the events following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in view of the resident’s reports that the matter has not yet been resolved and the landlord’s view that it completed the necessary works. The landlord’s records clearly show that it was aware that leaks were impacting various properties in the building, including the resident’s flat, in May 2024. The evidence shows that there was continued chasing both by the resident and EH and that a “temporary” repair to apply roof tape was undertaken on 21 June 2024.
Based on the evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord took adequate steps to ensure that the “temporary” roof repair to apply roof tape on 21 June 2024 was completed to the correct area of roof. The landlord’s internal communication indicates that it had identified punctures in the roof above the resident’s property which needed patching.
The landlord has provided evidence, including a completion report specifically referring to the resident’s flat number, of works undertaken on 21 June 2024. The completion images of the work undertaken primarily show roof tape applied to areas of the fourth-floor roof, including areas on the other side of the building to the resident’s property. Internally, its staff queried whether the repairs had been completed to the correct roof on 26 June 2024. Its records indicate that a supervisor had attended on 27 June 2024 and confirmed that the repair tape had bonded well with the roof. However, the Ombudsman has seen no further evidence of investigations into whether the tape was applied in the correct area at the time.
The landlord has now indicated that the tape was not applied to the roof above the resident’s property and that this was only applied to the fourth floor roof as the leak was suspected to be travelling down into her property via a soil stack pipe. The landlord’s contemporaneous records make no mention of this being the suspected cause of the leak. This information is also contradictory to its own internal records which indicate that there were puncture holes to the roof directly above the resident’s property. As a result, it remains unclear as to whether the repair was carried out correctly and whether the landlord adequately learnt from previous failings.
The resident confirmed to the landlord on 28 June 2024 that there was still a leak into her property. While the landlord’s internal records suggest that it was in the process of gaining quotes to replace sections of the roof in July 2024, there is no further evidence that it has communicated with the resident or offered any reassurance as to how it intended to resolve the leak prior to a recent visit on 27 September 2024. This is again likely to have caused uncertainty, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
As a shared ownership leaseholder, the resident had no alternative but to wait for the landlord, who is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building, to determine the cause of the issue. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it gave the resident, or her property, of which it has an interest as a shared owner, adequate consideration or respect. The landlord’s failure to put things right or explain how it satisfied itself that it had completed repairs to stop water ingress into the resident’s home has had a significant long-term impact.
The Ombudsman has found that there has been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports. The delay in resolving the leak, from as early as September 2021 to date, is significant and unreasonable. While it can take time to resolve roof leaks, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took proactive steps to identify, diagnose and resolve the leak into the resident’s property for extended periods. It is evident that the issues is ongoing and having an additional impact on the resident as she has reported that the water is now affecting the electrics and is worried that the ceiling may collapse.
Its failure to listen to the resident’s concerns that the roof above her property was not the “main” fourth floor roof, and that staff did not appear to be aware of the location of the leak contributed to the delay in resolving the issue. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it communicated effectively with the resident and it inappropriately stated that this was due to the repair being a “block repair”, indicating that it had not taken into consideration the impact on her, or her family, as individuals. The resident was also impacted by needing to wait for the landlord to resolve the leak before being able to put right the damage caused to her property via insurance which was likely to add to the uncertainty and frustration caused to her and have impacted her living conditions.
The landlord’s revised offer of £650 compensation for this aspect of the complaint is not considered proportionate in view of the identified failings and several orders have been made below for the landlord to put things right and identify points of learning to improve its service moving forward. It is the Ombudsman’s view that additional compensation is warranted given the failings set out above. The order made below considers the distress, inconvenience and uncertainty experienced by the resident over a significant period, the delay in resolving the leak impacting her property, the time and trouble she spent pursuing her concerns and the impact on her living conditions as a result.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident raised a complaint around 25 August 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2023, which was within a reasonable timescale. The resident asked that her complaint was escalated on 11 November 2023. However, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 13 March 2024, a period of 84 working days and significantly outside of its complaints process timescales.
While the landlord said that it followed process and kept the resident updated on the progress of her complaint, it has not provided documentary evidence to this Service to confirm that it did so. It did, however, acknowledge that it had extended the deadline on numerous occasions and apologised for the length of time taken to respond.
Through the complaints process, the landlord offered a total of £225 compensation comprised of £75 for poor communication by the handler of the previous complaint, and £150 for the impact of the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2. It offered a further £100 compensation in August 2024 for not keeping the resident updated in the relation to the complaint.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords are expected to address each aspect of a complaint, identify where things have gone wrong and demonstrate learning within their responses. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to suitably engage with the concerns raised by the resident. She raised specific concerns that the repair carried out in June 2023 did not relate to her property, that staff were not aware that the flats were comprised of different blocks over different floors, that staff were unable to view the repair history for the building as a whole, that repairs were cancelled as it was assumed her reports related to other reports of roof leaks, and a lack of communication, with the landlord associating the repair as a ”block” repair.
The landlord had the opportunity to investigate her concerns and identify failings and learning in how it managed the repairs. The resident spent time setting out what she felt had gone wrong and the evidence provided by the landlord shows that her concerns were valid. The landlord did little to show that it listened to her concerns or used the complaint as an opportunity to acknowledge its failings. At stage 2, it had a further opportunity to identify errors in its stage 1 complaint response but did not do so, indicating a failure in how it manages stage 2 review responses. Overall, the landlord’s responses were likely to make the resident feel ignored and the landlord failed to engage with the substantive issues raised.
The landlord acted reasonably by confirming that matters related to damage to the internal parts of the property could be raised via an insurance claim. It is noted that it initially provided the resident with its liability insurance details as part of the previous complaint in June 2021. Landlords are entitled to use insurance to cover liability claims, and we would not expect them to consider such claims outside the insurance process. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s concern that she was no longer able to claim via building insurance due to the length of time the issue had been ongoing.
The landlord subsequently reviewed the case in August 2024. It said that its previous responses did not fully address the issues or provide a reasonable outcome and increased its total offer of compensation by £500. It added that improvements had been made in relation to its complaint handling and that it was implementing new measures. In its communication to the Ombudsman, it confirmed that the offer and explanation was made to give reassurance and rebuild the relationship.
It can be reasonable for a landlord to review its handling of a complaint and offer revised compensation in cases such as this where the substantive issue is ongoing. However, in this case, the landlord’s revised offer indicated that it understood the repairs had been resolved on 20 March 2024. It failed to acknowledge that the leak was ongoing or offer any reassurance as to how it intended to resolve the situation which was likely to cause further distress and frustration to the resident. It is also evident that the landlord’s review of the resident’s case was prompted by the Ombudsman’s investigation. The landlord did not utilise its internal complaints process to address these matters, and it remains unclear as to whether the revised award of compensation would have been made, and points of learning would have been established, had the complaint not been referred to this Service for investigation.
While the landlord’s revised offer of £325 compensation for its complaint handling can be said to put this aspect of the complaint right for the resident, the landlord did not suitably engage with the concerns raised by the resident at the time or demonstrate it had adequately investigated the complaint. The Ombudsman has found that there has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint on this basis. Several orders have been made below for the landlord to review the case and identify points of learning.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak through the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified. The apology should come from the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer and should be delivered in writing, over the phone, or in person, at the resident’s request.
2. Assign a member of staff to act as a point of contact for the resident and monitor works through to completion if it has not already done so. They should arrange to contact the resident at regular intervals (at least fortnightly) while the leak is ongoing.
3. Arrange a survey of the resident’s property and the third floor roof area directly above to determine what further works are required. It should review the layout and floor plan of the building (as shown in the resident’s lease agreement) to ensure that it is surveying and carrying out work to the correct area and consider appropriate methods (including a dye test and accessing any void space above the resident’s property) to establish a firm diagnosis of the cause of any ongoing water ingress.
4. Pay the resident £3,600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced, and time and trouble spent, due to the failings in its handling of her reports of a leak and her complaint. This is inclusive of its previous total offer of £975.
Within 6 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to:
1. Confirm the method and findings of the inspection, particularly its diagnosis of the cause of the specific leak into her property. It should also provide a copy of the surveyor’s report to the resident and the Ombudsman.
2. Advise what action it intends to take to resolve the leak on both a temporary and long-term basis and the timescales for the work (including whether any parts of the roof need to be renewed and when it will do so).
3. Advise what works it will conduct inside the resident’s property to address her health and safety concerns with regard to ceilings and electrics.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case with a specific focus on its approach to leaks to establish points of learning. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks. The review should consider (at a minimum):
1. The evidence that was available regarding the leak diagnosis, and any missed opportunities from September 2021 to date to rectify the leak impacting the resident’s property.
2. Its processes for diagnosing, prioritising and resolving leaks and whether it has adequate systems in place to ensure that it can differentiate between leaks reported in different areas of a block or building.
3. Any staff training, including in relation to its complaints handling and record keeping, that may improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £550 as previously offered in its June 2021 complaint response, if it has not already done so.
The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the recommendation within 4 weeks of this report.