Rugby Borough Council (202227307)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227307

Rugby Borough Council

22 May 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a 1 bedroom flat in a block, and his tenancy started in December 2018. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 16 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours emergency repairs team to report a leak. The landlord attended and found the leak was coming from the property above, which was privately owned. There was nobody home at the property above, and the landlord was unable to contact owner. It isolated the water to the property to prevent further water ingress into the resident’s property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 December 2022 to make a complaint, and said that following the leak the landlord had done “nothing” to fix the damage caused by the leak. He reported that he had water “running down” the walls and black mould growing “all over” his property.
The landlord sought to complete an inspection of the resident’s property in January 2023, but its notes reflect it was unable to make contact with the resident to book the appointment.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 8 February 2023 and said that it was not liable for the damage caused to the resident’s property due to the leak coming from a privately owned property. It said the resident would need to claim for cost of repairs and damaged possessions from his home insurance, and it was not responsible for any “remedials”. It explained that it was unable to share contact details for the owner of the property above, due to data protection rules. It said it had supplied the resident with dehumidifiers as a “gesture of goodwill”, and said it was not able to “assist with this matter any further”.
On 12 February 2023 the landlord completed repairs to the roof of the property including re laying tiles after replacing the roof felt, replacing the lead flashing, and installing a “deep flow” gutter. At the visit it reported the window was “going rotten” and needed replacing.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, and asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 13 February 2023. He said the response was “unsatisfactory” as he was unhappy the landlord had not provided details of the owner of the upstairs property, so he could pursue the matter. He was of the view that the building was the landlord’s responsibility and he had black mould “throughout” the property, and water was “running down” the walls. He also expressed a concern about a window repair he had raised in 2020.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 8 March 2023, and confirmed its position that it would not share contact details for the owner of the property above, but his insurer may be able to assist. It said the mould was a “subsequent result” of the leak and “not due to fair wear and tear” so would need to be addressed via the resident’s home insurance. In relation to the window repair the landlord said:
1. It was unable to complete the repair in 2020 due to the Covid-19 restrictions at the time.
2. It had tried to complete the repair in January 2021, but the resident had cancelled the appointment due to contracting Covid-19.
3. It had left voicemails asking the resident to rebook the repair, but had received no response.
4. It has now instructed its contractor to progress with the repair, who would be in touch to book the appointment.
On 21 March 2023, the resident contacted this Service and asked us to investigate his complaint, and said the landlord had completed repairs to the roof “5 days” before issuing its final complaint response, and he was of the view the damage would not had occurred if it had done the repairs earlier. He said the window repair was not yet done, and he had asked the landlord to confirm when it would go ahead.
The landlord replaced the window on 1 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord does not have a repairs policy, but provided the ‘service level agreement’(SLA) for its repairs team for this investigation. The SLA states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours; urgent repairs within 5 working days; and all other responsive repairs within 20 working days.

Repairs following a leak

As part of his complaint the resident raised a concern that his possessions were damaged by the leak from the property above, including damage to his carpets. It is not the role of this Service to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is, however, the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
When the resident asked us to investigate his complaint, he stated that had the landlord completed works to the roof earlier, his property would not have been damaged when the leak from the property above occurred. We note the resident’s concerns about this. However, it is not within the scope of this investigation to determine whether the roof works would have prevented damage caused by the leak. We do not have the information, or indeed the expertise, to make such a determination of causation. Instead, we have considered when the landlord was on notice about repairs, and whether its actions in relation to the repairs raised were reasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence shows that when the resident reported a leak from the property above, the landlord attended on the same day as an out of hours emergency repair. Given what the resident had reported, this was appropriate in the circumstances and within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. While not responsible for the repair in the property above, the landlord took reasonable steps to prevent further water ingress into the resident’s property, which was appropriate.
We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to conduct a follow on inspection following the leak. Considering there had been water ingress into the resident’s property, an inspection to ascertain any remedial repairs needed, under its repair obligations set out in Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, would have been appropriate. That it did not seek to do so was a failing in its handling of the matter which caused the resident an inconvenience.
The resident put the landlord on notice about the need for repairs in his property, following the leak, on 16 December 2022, when he made a complaint. The resident reported “damage” caused by the leak, mould, and water dripping down the walls. The evidence shows the landlord sought to inspect the report damage to the ceiling after this report, which was appropriate. From the records it appear the landlord sought to inspect on 11 January 2023, but was unable to make contact. The note reflect it was going to knock on the resident’s door to advise him it planned to inspect on 17/19 January 2023. However, there is no recorded outcome of this attempt, which is a shortcoming in its record keeping.
On the evidence available it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord sought to inspect the property within its SLA timeframes. That it was unable to progress at that time was somewhat outside of its control, which impacted on its ability to respond. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord was proactive in trying to follow up on this repair, which was inappropriate. Indeed, its later position was that it was not responsible for “remedials” was unreasonable and evidence it did not have due regard for its repair responsibilities.
In December 2022, the resident also reported that he had mould “all over” his property and water “dripping” down the walls. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to inspect the property in relation to these issues, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by putting the landlord on notice about an issue in his property, and it not inspecting within a reasonable timeframe.
In relation to the concerns raised about the conditions in the property, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate. It cited that it was not responsible for remedial repairs, after the leak, this was unreasonable. In line with its responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it was responsible for repairs to the internal structure of the resident’s property. While it is noted the possible cause of the damage was not a repair it was responsible, to cite it was not responsible for remedial repairs was unreasonable. As such, an appropriate order is set out below. It is noted that its position in relation to damage to the resident’s possessions was reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 8 February 2023, was dismissive of the resident’s concerns in relation to mould, and the fact he had described water as “dripping” down the walls. Its silence on these issues in the complaint response was inappropriate, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. That it said it could not “assist any further” with the issues the resident had described is concerning and caused the resident distress.
Despite, inappropriately, stating it could not assist any further with the conditions the resident had described, the evidence indicates the landlord completed repairs to the roof in February 2023. This 2 months after the resident had put it on notice about the issue, which was unreasonable, and outside of the timeframes set out in its SLA. The unreasonable delay increased the inconvenience the resident had already experienced.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also appropriate in relation to the repairs reported. That it suggested the mould was a result of the leak, and it was therefore not responsible for it was inappropriate. The landlord also completed roof repairs around that time, due to the resident’s concerns about water ingress. To therefore to suggest such issues was solely down to the leak was inappropriate and lacked transparency. It is noted that following the above repair, the resident reported the property was “drying out” and the mould issue appeared to be resolved.
The landlord’s approach to the resident’s reports of mould and water ingress in its complaint response was not in line with the recommended approach set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, that states landlord’s should adopt a “zero tolerance” to damp and mould. As such, an appropriate order is set out below.
It is noted that the landlord’s approach to the damage to the resident’s possessions was not unreasonable. However, its position in relation to sharing the contact details of the owner of the property above was dismissive. It is noted that under GDPR regulations it could not share someone’s data without permission. However, a more supportive approach to enable the resident to make contact would have been appropriate. Its approach did little to build trust with the resident to assist him in pursuing a claim against the owner of the property. As such a recommendation is set out below.

Repairs to window

The evidence shows that the landlord was on notice about a repair to the window from 2020. It is unclear what action it took at that time, due to the passage of time. It is not within the scope of this investigation to assess the landlord’s actions from that time. Our Scheme states that a complaint needs to be brought to the landlord within a reasonable time of the events occurring (usually 12 months). We have therefore decided to assess the landlord’s actions in relation to the window repair from when it was put on notice, as part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint, on 13 February 2023.
The landlord replaced the window on 1 November 2023. This was nearly 9 months after the resident raised a concern about it in his email of 13 February 2023. This was unreasonable, and well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs SLA. This caused the resident an inconvenience. It is noted that replacing window can take some time, due to the need to measure up, and production timeframes. However, we have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to explain the delay to the resident in order to manage his expectations about the delay, which was inappropriate. The resident was left not knowing when the landlord would replace the window.
The landlord’s approach in relation to remedial repairs, following the leak, was inappropriate. The resident also raised concerns about mould, and ongoing water ingress. It is noted the repairs it completed to the roof appeared to resolve the issue of mould, which this Service welcomes. However, that the repairs took place over 2 months after it was on notice about the issue, was inappropriate. The repair to the window took place within a reasonable timeframe after the landlord was put on notice in February 2023. The landlord’s complaint responses were inappropriate in relation to the repairs issues, and dismissive of the resident’s concerns. As such, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and have made a series of orders below.

Complaint handling

At the time the resident made his complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its procedure stated that it would issue stage 1 complaint responses within 15 working days, and stage 2 responses would also be sent within 15 working days.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 35 working days after the complaint was made. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its procedure, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This was a failing in its complaint handling that inconvenienced the resident as he did not have his complaint answered within a reasonable timeframe. That the landlord did not acknowledge, or apologise for, the delay in its complaint response was inappropriate. It is also noted that, at the time, the landlord’s complaint procedure timescales did not adhere to those stipulated in the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 17 working days after it was made, slightly outside of its policy timeframes. It is noted that this was within the timeframe set out in the Code. It is also noted that this was a far shorter delay, but the fact it did not acknowledge the, albeit slight, delay was a shortcoming in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £425 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs.
  2. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Meet with the resident at his property to identify any remedial repairs needed, in line with its repair obligations.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to produce guidance for its staff responsible for repairs that sets out:
1. Repairs it is responsible for under its repair obligations.
2. The recommended approach to damp and mould set out in the Ombudsman spotlight report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord asks permission from the owner of the property above to share their contact details with the resident. This is to assist him in pursuing a claim for damage to his possessions.