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

Norwich City Council (202400012)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400012

Norwich City Council

19 November 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:
    1. A roof leak at the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder. The resident lives in a flat within a block on the first floor.
  2. In February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported a leak entering her property from the roof.
  3. On 8 December 2023, the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She stated she wanted to complain about the handling of the roof repair issue. The resident explained she continued to have a leaking roof and damp issues and stated the ongoing issue with the roof could impact her respiratory condition.
  4. On 27 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord chasing a response to her complaint.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 March 2024. It explained that its roof contractor previously attended the resident’s property and carried out a roof inspection. The contractor identified during the inspection that the eave felt on the roof required replacement. The landlord explained it carried out temporary work to repair the roof. However, it explained due to a limited budget, it could not carry out works to renew the roof until the financial year of 2024/2025. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing leak.
  6. On 19 March 2024, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and explained that she would like to know why she had been provided with incorrect information about the completion of the roof repair, when it was still outstanding. The resident also stated there was no acknowledgement from the landlord about its delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 March 2024. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord explained that its roof contractor, inspected the hole on the roof and identified the issue with the roof as poor workmanship. It explained that the resident’s block had been placed on its 2024/2025 financial year, re–roof & roofline programme due to start on 1 April 2024 and run to 31st March 2025. The landlord stated any affected leaseholders by the works would be consulted under a section 20 consultation and the contractor would inform the resident prior to the works beginning.
  8. On 17 July 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and offered her £250 compensation to recognise its failure to complete the appropriate repairs to the roof. It also confirmed that it would not charge the resident service charges for the roof and inspection and replacement because of its delays.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the landlord to repair the roof and provide compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  10. The landlord and resident have confirmed that the roof was recently fixed in October 2024.

Assessment and findings

A Roof leak at the resident’s property

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident mentioned as part of her complaint that she had a respiratory condition. Therefore, the ongoing roof leak which resulted in damp in her property could have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. We understand this has been a difficult time for the resident. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on the resident’s health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate this as a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant health risk, particularly to those with respiratory problems. This service can consider the general risk, and any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Policies and Procedures and lease agreement

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property and building. The leaseholder handbook also explains that the landlord would be responsible for the structure of the building, including the foundations, the roof, and external walls.
  2. In addition, the leaseholder’s handbook explains that although the landlord is responsible for carrying out certain repairs, a leaseholder is obliged to pay their share of the cost. It explains costs of day-to-day repairs would be included in a leaseholder’s annual service charge.

Assessment

  1. On 7 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported a leak entering her property from the roof. Following the resident’s report, the landlord raised a work order on 10 February 2023 for the roof to be inspected and repaired. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on 22 February 2023. However, it could not gain access. The landlord initially took reasonable steps to arrange an inspection into the roof leak and it being unable to gain access would have been outside the landlord’s control.
  2. Shortly after the landlord’s contractor’s initial visit, the landlord stated its contractor attended the resident’s property on 8 March 2023 to inspect the roof and informed the landlord that works needed to be carried out on the roof and guttering. Although the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the roof, there is no evidence to suggest that any repairs to the roof were completed following the inspection. Due to the landlord’s contractor not completing the relevant repairs to fix the roof, the resident contacted the landlord in May 2023 and explained that the leak was ongoing and becoming worse. The delay in the landlord repairing the roof after its initial inspection was unreasonable, and it failed to repair the roof within a reasonable timeframe.

 

  1. After the resident contacted the landlord in May 2023 about the ongoing roof leak, the landlord failed to take the appropriate steps to promptly repair the roof, as its contractors did not attend the resident’s property until 4 September 2023 to inspect the roof. During the inspection, it was identified that the eave felt on the roof required replacement. In addition, on 5 October 2023, a damp survey was completed at the resident’s property. The surveyor concluded that there was long–term water ingress to the wall in the front bedroom and damp staining to the wall at ceiling level. The surveyor recommended for the felt in the eaves  to be inspected and for the installation of additional felt in the eaves. They also stated that the block should be re-roofed. The landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the roof and carrying out a damp inspection at the resident’s property. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to carry out these inspections much sooner than it did.
  2. On 10 November 2023, the landlord raised a work order for repairs to the roof. The landlord stated it erected scaffolding on 14 November 2023 and roofing repair works were completed on 24 November 2023. It is unclear whether the roof works took place, as the resident informed the Ombudsman that she did not see any scaffolding erected or any works carried out on the roof until recently. If the landlord did complete works on the roof, then the repairs did not resolve the leak, as the resident contacted the landlord shortly after, in December 2023, to submit a complaint about the ongoing roof leak entering her property and causing damp issues. In addition, she also contacted the landlord in January 2024 and explained the roof leak had been outstanding for nearly a year and informed the landlord that a hole had developed in the roof. The length of time the roof leak was outstanding was unreasonable and would have been distressing for the resident.
  3. The landlord stated that further roof works were carried out on 12 February 2024, which included a cast gutter repair and tile stripping. In addition, in response to the reported hole in the roof, a work order was raised by the landlord on 13 February 2024. The contractor attended the property shortly after and identified that the issue was not a hole in the roof but poor workmanship from a previous repair several years ago. The landlord responded appropriately by inspecting the hole in the roof. However, it had failed to complete the necessary works to resolve the roof leak.
  4. In March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in repairing the roof. The landlord also explained that no further works would be carried out to the roof area, because the resident’s building block had been placed on a re–roof and roofline works programme for the financial year of 2024/2025. It explained it could not complete the re–roof and roofline planned works sooner due to a limited budget. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord had planned to renew the roof in the upcoming financial year. It is reasonable for the landlord to schedule major works such as a roof replacement in advance and it may not be possible to bring these works forward due to the need to carry out a consultation process with leaseholders in line with the landlord’s legal obligations. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out the necessary temporary repairs to stop the roof leak in the meantime to prevent further distress and damage to the resident’s property.
  5. On 17 July 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and offered her £250 compensation to recognise its failure to complete the appropriate repairs to the roof. It also confirmed that it would not charge the resident service charges for the roof inspection and replacement due to its delays. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it has not yet calculated how much the service charge cost would be for the roof works as this is due to be calculated in the next financial year. However, it has confirmed that the roof works cost approximately £28,000. This offer was made after the landlord’s complaints process had been exhausted. It was a positive step by the landlord to offer the compensation. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation during its complaints process.
  6. Shortly after the landlord made its offer of compensation, it contacted the resident on 19 July 2024 and explained that it had identified that the resident’s property was in a conservation area. It stated due to this, it could not provide the resident with a start date for the roof work, as it was waiting to receive advice from the conservation team on the type of materials which would need to be used in the roof. The Ombudsman recognises that this delay would have been outside the landlord’s control. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to identify that the property was within a conservation area much sooner than it did, particularly as the roof leak was first reported in February 2023.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 August 2024 asking for an update on the roof works. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day and explained it had booked roof works for September 2024. It explained that the scaffolding was due to be erected, the week beginning 16 September 2024, and the re-roofing works were due to start the following week. The completion of the roof replacement was in October 2024 and a post inspection of the works was completed on 23 October 2024. The resident also informed the Ombudsman on 30 October 2024 that the roof works had been completed. She also informed the Ombudsman that no further works were outstanding, as part of her property got damp from the leak, but she did not get any mould and confirmed that the damp would dry out.
  8. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s compensation offer of £250 and not to charge the resident service charges for the roof works is reasonable and more than the Ombudsman would have awarded in this case. The roof replacement works cost the landlord around £28,000 and there were 2 leaseholders living in the block of flats. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £1000 or more where there has been a serious failure by the landlord.
  9. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord identified that the resident had experienced delays in the roof being repaired and ultimately offered substantial redress for this. However, the compensation was only recently offered to the resident in July 2024. It is the Ombudsman’s role to consider the landlord’s handling of complaints through its internal complaints process and, in assessing this, we consider the reasonableness of any offers made during the complaints process. Where a landlord makes a reasonable offer of compensation after the end of its complaints process, the Ombudsman may make a finding of service failure or maladministration by the landlord as the offer should have been made during the complaints process. In this case, the roof works were eventually completed in October 2024. However, considering the offer of £250 compensation and not to charge the resident service charges for the roof works was made to the resident after the complaints process ended, and there was no offer of reasonable compensation during the complaints process, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak at the resident’s property. The landlord should pay the resident the £250 it offered previously, unless this has already been paid.

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage one response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The resident first submitted her complaint to the landlord on 8 December 2023. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 13 March 2024. The response was sent approximately 3 months after the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord despite her chasing the landlord on 27 February 2024. The response time was considerably late and not compliant with the Code or the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. On 19 March 2024, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 March 2024. The response was on time and compliant with the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that there was a delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay, but it did not offer any compensation to recognise the delay. However, in July 2024, it offered the resident £250 compensation and agreed not to charge the resident service charges for the roof, as referenced above.
  5. The overall compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance referenced above. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident. However, considering the compensation was made to the resident after the complaints process ended and there was no offer of reasonable compensation during the complaints process, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered in July 2024 if it has not already done so and not charge the resident for the roofing works via her service charges as previously agreed.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.