Somerset Council (202336015)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336015

Somerset Council

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the local authority landlord. She lives in a first floor one bedroom flat in sheltered housing. Her tenancy started in 2021. The resident has several health complaints including type 2 diabetes and a heart condition. The resident also has respiratory difficulties.
The landlord’s repair records show that it undertook inspections of the roof and gutters in May 2022, and it also undertook a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property in May 2022.
In June 2022, the resident reported concerns that there were bats nesting in the roof space in her building. The landlord’s pest control team inspected and confirmed the presence of bat droppings.
The resident followed this up with the landlord in September 2022. It informed her that bats are a protected species and that if they were disturbed or harmed, they would face strict financial penalties. The pest contractor agreed to contact a bat ecologist and then let the resident know what should happen next.
In December 2022, the resident reported that there was water staining on the ceiling by the window header and no electricity to the bedroom ceiling light. She believed that the issues were related and asked that the landlord send someone to inspect it urgently. The landlord told her that it would send someone to inspect it after Christmas. In January 2023, an electrician attended and replaced the light switch.
The landlord contacted the resident in March 2023 and said that it had discovered the roof leak on its records and noted that it had not yet inspected it. It attended on 13 March 2023 to complete an inspection. It cleared the gutters and reported that there may be asbestos tiles in the roof, and there would need to be an asbestos survey before it could arrange to remove them safely.
When there was no further action, the resident chased the works on 31 March 2023. The building team then assessed the property and took photographs of the roof. It noted that the resident’s interior window header in her bedroom had bowed and was saturated. It said that it needed to repair the roof before internal works could ensue.
The resident chased the works again on 19 and 26 April 2023. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that there was a discussion between teams about putting up scaffolding so the asbestos team could attend to remove the tiles, and it requested a date for this to happen.
There was a further discussion between the landlord’s staff and the pest control contractors about the presence of bats in the roof on 27 April 2023. The pest control contractors again said that the landlord would need to refer this to an expert as they were not qualified to confirm the presence or absence of bats. The repairs team said that it could not arrange to erect scaffolding to allow access to repair the roof unless they were confident that there were no bats nesting there.
The resident reported that the landlord attended on 28 April 2023 and took internal photographs of her property. She said that they discussed the roof works and that it needed confirmation of the absence of bats before they could start.
On 13 May 2023, the resident received a call from the landlord to say that they needed to take internal photos of her window header. She responded that someone had attended some weeks ago to do this and that there had been heavy rain the previous night which resulted in a large amount of rainwater entering her flat.
The resident chased this again on 10 June 2023. The landlord undertook a further visual roof survey. It found that rainwater was entering the roof space through a broken tile on the roof. The landlord agreed that it would need to replace the roof, as earlier repairs had been unsuccessful.
The records show that the landlord had further discussions with its teams on 12 June 2023. The landlord’s teams agreed that it would need to establish the presence of bats in the roof space before any works could start. On 15 June 2023, the landlord undertook a temporary repair of the roof but the following day the resident reported that the leak had got worse.
The resident chased the repairs a further 4 times between June and August 2023. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that, on 18 July 2023, there was a discussion about timescales for the roof replacement. Its operative expressed the opinion that further works to the bedroom could not ensue until it had replaced the roof. On 18 July 2023, the landlord referred the works to its planned works team.
On 18 September 2023, the resident reported that, following a storm the night before, water had been running down her walls from the leak in the roof, her bedroom smelled damp, and she was using towels to try to absorb the water. The landlord chased this up internally, but it was not able to access the roof due to the weather conditions, without a scaffold.
The landlord inspected the roof again on 28 September 2023 and photographed the damage to the resident’s bedroom caused by the water ingress. The inspector noted that the walls were wet and spongy.
The resident reported in October 2023 that the ceiling above her bedroom window had collapsed due to the ongoing roof leak. The landlord responded to this as an emergency repair.
On 13 October 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said that:
1. She had been chasing the roof repairs up for four months.
2. There was a lack of communication from the landlord.
3. She was in ill health and the conditions in her flat were making this worse.
4. She wanted to know when the landlord would make the roof watertight and when it would replace it.
On 13 October 2023, the landlord’s internal records show that there was communication with its planned works team who expressed concern that the matter had been ongoing for 10 months without resolution and outlined that a bat ecology survey would be necessary if it could not confirm the absence of bats. It also said that it would need to arrange to erect scaffold, that an asbestos survey would be necessary, which may require a licensed removal. The landlord asked that a high-level survey for the roof be completed and that it meets its obligations to consult with affected leaseholders.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 17 October 2023 and said that it intended to respond by 31 October 2023.
On 31 October 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident saying that it would need to extend the deadline for response to 14 November 2023. It extended the deadline again on 13 November 2023 with a new response date of 17 November 2023.
The landlord issued its response on 17 November 2023. It said that:
1. There had been a departmental breakdown of communication which led to instances of inaccurate information being relayed and lack of interactions.
2. It would arrange to fit a new roof as soon as it had undertaken all the necessary surveys and assessments.
3. It would initially make the roof watertight. It would then complete an inspection of the internal damage.
4. It would redecorate the resident’s bedroom, make good the window header and carpet replacement. This would happen before it replaced the roof.
5. It said that it would arrange a wellbeing visit to the resident and a damp and mould survey.
6. It apologised for the distress caused to the resident and offered her £400 in compensation.
On 22 November 2023, the landlord’s internal correspondence showed that the resident had said that she did not want a damp and mould survey at that time, and she would rather that it postponed this until it had resolved her complaint.
During the week of 27 November 2023, the landlord completed a temporary repair to the roof to make it weatherproof by covering the affected area with tarpaulin and scaffolding planks.
The following day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure. She said that there were inaccuracies in the stage 1 response and that she had received contradictory about what works t. She was also unhappy with the level of compensation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 November 2023 and said that it hoped to respond by 4 January 2024.
On 22 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response:
1. It said that the roof would be repaired in stages, all the necessary surveys and assessments would be carried out before it replaced the roof.
2. It had made the roof weatherproof. It would provide an agreed timescale to review the possibility of providing a date to put on a new roof in Spring 2024.
3. This would all be dependent on an ecological expert undertaking a bat survey.
4. It asked that she rearrange the damp and mould survey.
5. It would put right to damage to her home and the decoration works would begin in January 2024.
6. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its complaints handling. It did not intend to offend with the tone of its response and apologised if the resident felt offended.
7. It increased its offer of compensation to £500.

Post internal complaints process

Between December 2023 and February 2024, the resident reported on 4 occasions that the tarpaulins and scaffold boards that were temporarily weatherproofing the roof had come loose following high winds. This had caused further water ingress in her bedroom. The landlord responded that it would consider putting a tin top hat scaffold over the roof to more effectively weather-proof the building.
On 16 January 2024, the landlord’s notes show that it proposed decanting the resident or installing a tin top hat scaffold. Following a home visit, however, the landlord recorded that the resident did not wish to be decanted or have the ‘top hat’ scaffold erected as it would block the light in the building. It said that it had discussed with the resident that a bat survey was due to take place at the end of February 2024 and it had also proposed helping with heating costs and providing her with a dehumidifier.
The ecological survey took place on the 26 February 2024. The process of applying for a bat licence was delayed however, as the ecologist needed further information in support of the application.
The resident reported that the tarpaulin and scaffold boards were loose again twice in May 2024 leading to further water ingress. She has said that around this time, while she was initially resistant to the ‘tin hat’ scaffold, she then asked that it go ahead as the existing weatherproofing measures were not effective.
The landlord’s asbestos survey went ahead in May 2024. On 17 June 2024, the landlord told the resident that the ecologist would be sending the bat licence application within a week, and it should be processed within 30 days. However, there was a delay in the ecologist sending it.
The landlord has since advised that there have been further delays with the bat licence application process. This is because there had been a request for further information and an outline of why the landlord needed to replace the roof. This information has been sent in September 2024 and it was awaiting a decision. The landlord has informed this Service on 20 September 2024 “in light of the autumn and winter approaching and waiting to receive the necessary licence to carry out works, continued discussions with the resident will take place to support and discuss suitability to stay in the property.”

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair.

Put things right.

Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said that the landlord’s failure to address the safety of the property has had a detrimental effect on her health. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine the cause of or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing or award damages for these in the way that the courts or an insurer might. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise necessary to make the legally binding judgements to do so. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Repairs to the roof

In investigating this complaint, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s actions considering its legal obligations, policies and procedures and good practice.
The resident reported that there was a leak in December 2022, but the landlord did not address this until March 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will provide a “a prompt, effective and efficient responsive repairs service” that prioritises repairs relating to health and safety. The policy does not include a timescale for repairs other than emergency repairs, that it says it will attend to within 24 hours. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides that a landlord should undertake repairs within a reasonable time.
In its complaint response, the landlord said that the delay was due to it incorrectly logging the repair. This was unsatisfactory. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work conducted and completion dates to ensure that it meets its repairing obligations.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management dated May 2023 says that “The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking proper and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. Creating data in systems that hold it appropriately are the first steps needed for good data management, but to turn that data into knowledge and action plans, it must be used. Conversely, if the creation of the data has been done poorly, or the systems do not exist to hold it adequately, any usage of that data will be inherently flawed.” The landlord’s failure to correctly log the repair caused detriment to the resident as the leak was left for 3 months, leading to further damage to the resident’s property.
When issue of the presence of bats nesting in the roof was raised in March 2023 this should have alerted landlord that a bat survey would be needed before any further action was taken. This was alluded to by the landlord’s pest contractor, however the absence of collaborative working, coupled with poor communication and co-ordination of the works led to this essential step in the process being delayed for almost 12 months.
Between March and May 2023, the landlord did not take further action. Despite discussions and inspections detailing what needed to happen before works could start, there was no effective project management and so it did not follow up these actions. The failure of the landlord to take ownership of the works, caused further delays.
The landlord agreed in June 2023 that it should replace the roof, but it did not refer this to the landlord’s planned works team until July 2023. It was only after the resident had made a formal complaint in October 2023 that the planned works team put in progress the necessary applications and surveys needed before works could start. Planned works are normally completed to an agreed work programme. Some repairs involving large-scale replacement or improvement works may be scheduled outside the major routine repairs priorities and are carried out under a separate programme as annual planned works or major repairs.
There was a further delay of 4 months in a bat survey being scheduled which was disappointing as the landlord had established that further action was dependent on confirmation of the absence of bats or a successful licence application. However, delays beyond February 2024 have been because of a delay in a bat licence application being granted for reasons that are outside of the landlord’s control.
Throughout this time, the landlord’s communication with the resident fell short of the standard the Ombudsman would expect. The resident said that she spent time and effort in contacting the landlord regularly with the sole aim of progressing the repairs. Between March 2023 and her complaint in October 2023, she chased the works with the landlord on at least 10 occasions. When there was no further action, she resorted to making a complaint in the hope that this would progress the works. Where works are subject to delays, the landlord should communicate this to the resident so that she can be reassured that matters are in hand. This did not happen, which added to the resident’s frustration and uncertainty.
There was also poor communication between the landlord’s teams, with repeated inspections and agreed steps not being actioned. The landlord attended on two occasions within a month to photograph the damage to the resident’s bedroom, the landlord contacted the pest control contractor on more than one occasion and asked them to inspect the roof space for the presence of bats, when they had said that they were not qualified to do so. A landlord should establish good internal communication procedures so that matters are followed up and outcomes recorded with other departments and contractors, to facilitate an effective and responsive service to its residents. Overall, the works were poorly coordinated which prolonged the works unnecessarily.
Although the resident had been reporting water ingress to the flat since December 2022, and the landlord had taken the decision that the roof could not be repaired in June 2023, it was not until the resident had raised a complaint that the landlord arranged for the roof to be weather proofed in November 2023. While some of the delays, such as adverse weather conditions preventing the erection of scaffolding, were outside of the landlord’s control, overall, it should have arranged the temporary weatherproofing of the roof at an earlier stage.
The detriment to the resident during this time was significant. She said that the property was very cold and damp due to the continued water ingress and heat escaping through the roof. During severe weather she tried to prevent the water from damaging her home by putting down towels to absorb it. She is also vulnerable with significant health problems, and she said that the cold and damp conditions in her home had affected her health.
The resident has continued to raise with the landlord that the weatherproofing periodically fails and that the scaffolding boards holding the tarpaulin bangs loudly against the roof in the wind and has fallen off the roof before, causing risk of injury to residents. The landlord had discussed the possibility of a tin ‘top hat’ scaffold with the resident in January 2024, which she had initially rejected but later asked that it go ahead with this. The landlord has not revisited this option with the resident, which is unsatisfactory.
The records show that the resident had first notified the landlord that the property was damp in April 2023. The resident reported this again in September 2023 and in her complaint dated October 2023. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says that if it considers that the damp and mould poses a risk to the resident’s health, it should undertake a damp and mould survey within 10 working days, and in all other cases within 20 working days. The landlord did not follow its policy as it did not raise a damp and mould inspection until October 2023. At this point, the resident felt that the inspection would have been futile as the source of the damp was the leak in the roof and that this would persist, causing further damp, until the landlord replaced the roof or effectively weatherproofed it.
It was positive that the landlord discussed the possibility of a decant with the resident in January 2024, given the ongoing problems with water ingress and the time it would take for it to replace the roof. The resident declined the offer of a decant at the time as she says the landlord told her that there were no suitable vacant properties. It may have been open for the landlord to have considered whether the resident wished to move permanently to another scheme, and if so, whether her circumstances met the criteria for a management transfer. The resident has since told this Service that she is expecting to go into hospital for surgery soon and she does not wish to revisit the possibility of a decant now, given her circumstances and the upheaval it would cause.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that various steps needed to be taken before works began; there needed to be consultation with leaseholders, a roof survey, a bat survey and a successful application for a bat licence, and an asbestos survey, and that some of the delays were outside of the control of the landlord. Nonetheless, the landlord’s failure to take ownership of the works, to show leadership and to project manage the works effectively from the start has caused lengthy and unnecessary delays which have, in turn, caused detriment to the resident. Overall, the landlord was not proactive and consequently a vulnerable resident in poor health was left living in damp and cold conditions for an extended period.
After careful consideration, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint. While it is acknowledged that this was a complex matter to resolve, the resident had to persistently chase the landlord for it to be progressed. There was a lack of accountability and oversight by the landlord in relation to the works. The distress and inconvenience that the resident suffered because of unnecessary and lengthy delays in the landlord undertaking the works were compounded by its poor communication.
The landlord’s redress policy says that it can offer a quantifiable remedy where there is a clear demonstration that an actual loss has occurred because of its service failure. It gives examples of increased heating or electricity bills. It also says that it can provide temporary heating sources or dehumidifiers, and meet the added costs of running them, where needed. While the evidence shows that the landlord discussed this with the resident in January 2024, no payments have been forthcoming since and it has not provided the resident has with a dehumidifier.
The landlord had offered the resident £400 in compensation for the service failing found in its stage 1 response, and it increased this to £500 at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure. The landlord’s redress policy says it will offer up to £100 in compensation for a minor service failure, between £100 and £500 for a major service failure with no lasting impact on the resident and over £500 for a severe service failure that has had a long-term impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman considers that the compensation awarded to the resident by the landlord is not proportionate to the detriment she has experienced as a result of its failings. The landlord had not considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact its continuing failure to resolve the issue has had on her. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident an added £1300 in compensation. This includes an uplift, following our Remedies Guidance, as her health needs are aggravating factors which meant that there was greater impact on the resident, justifying an increased award.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint outside of its published response timescales of 10 working days. However, it followed its policy by notifying the resident of a delay in advance of the deadline and providing revised deadline for response. Further, while there was a short delay, this did not adversely impact the resident overall.
There were inaccuracies in the landlord’s stage 1 response which was unsatisfactory. Again, this was indicative of ineffective record keeping. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records. Incorrect details in the response affected the resident’s confidence that the landlord would resolve her complaint satisfactorily.
The resident had also said that she found the tone of the letters to be patronising. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it had considered the response and noted that it had not intended to offend the resident but apologised if this had been the case. The Ombudsman considers this to have been a reasonable response.
Overall, the landlord followed its complaints policy, however there were inaccuracies in the complaints letters that it could have avoided with more effective knowledge and information management. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of service failure and orders the landlord to pay the resident £70 in compensation.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leaking roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Arrange for a senior officer to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the amount of £1370 in compensation which includes:
  1. £700 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the failings found in this report.
  2. £600 for the resident’s time and trouble in having to chase up the repairs.
  3. £70 because of the landlord’s complaint handling service failures.
3. If it has not done so already, to pay the resident the £500 it had offered her in compensation at stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
4. Contact this Service to confirm that it has made this payment to the resident.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide its position on improving the conditions in the resident’s property by more effective weatherproofing of the roof and taking steps to dry out and prevent heat escape from the property, given that the resident is not able to move from the property on a temporary basis at present.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident to revisit its offer of January 2024 regarding the resident’s heating costs and provision of a dehumidifier. The landlord should inform this Service of the outcome of this discussion.