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

Stroud District Council (202341939)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341939

Stroud District Council

21 January 2025


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 roof repairs and associated leaks.

Background

  1. The resident and his partner are joint secure tenants of the landlord, which is a local authority. Their tenancy at the property began on 28 February 2022. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat within a purpose built residential block.
  2. On 5 September 2022, the resident reported water staining and droplets had appeared in the utility room of the property. He said he believed this to be caused by a leak from the roof. He asked the landlord to arrange an inspection of the utility room and the roof of the block.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 20 April 2023. He expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication about the roof repairs since he first reported the leak back in September 2022. He said the landlord and its contractor had also ‘frequently’ visited the property unannounced and that this caused distress and anxiety to his partner, who had PTSD. The resident asked for the landlord to ensure that all future visits were arranged with him so that he could be present. He also requested details of when the roof works were expected to start and how long they would take.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2023. It accepted that the level of communication with the resident was “not acceptable” and it would “make every effort” to improve this. The landlord acknowledged that it should also have given more consideration to his partner’s “circumstances”. It advised that it would be renewing the roof to the block but would arrange to carry out any short term repairs to combat the roof leak, and damp and mould issues in the meantime.
  5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 23 November 2023. He said the landlord was still not communicating with him about the progress of the roof works.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 December 2023. It apologised for the “inexcusable” lack of communication, especially following its stage 1 assurance that this would improve. The landlord provided the resident with a single point of contact for the roof works and said it would provide him with a date the works were due to start in January 2024. It said works would be completed by the end of March 2024.
  7. On 31 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord. He said he had not received its promised update. The landlord responded on 14 February 2024, it apologised for the delayed response and advised that the works had been pushed back to the 2024-25 financial year.
  8. The landlord’s contractor began work to renew the roof on 13 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act establishes that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property and wider block. This includes the roof and internal walls.
  2. The resident first reported water ingress into the utility room of the property on 5 September 2022 by email. He asked the landlord to inspect his property and the roof of the block. The landlord responded on 6 September 2022. It said it could send an engineer that afternoon and asked if the resident was available to give access. This service has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s reply, or any records indicating when the engineer attended.
  3. In an email of 25 September 2022, the resident said the engineer had identified a hole in the roof which was the source of the leak. He asked for an update on any works to the roof. The landlord failed to respond to this email and the resident sent a further email on 9 October 2022 chasing a response.
  4. The landlord responded to this email on 10 October 2022. It said it “instructed a contractor to carry out the work required”. It advised the resident that the contractor would contact him directly to arrange an appointment. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide detail of the works it had instructed. It was unclear whether this included repairs to the interior of the resident’s property or just the roof.
  5. The resident next contacted the landlord on 21 October 2022. He said that its contractor had attended the previous week and assessed the roof has having “reached its end of life”. He also reported that water marks had now began to appear on the bedroom ceiling. On the same day, the landlord’s contractor produced a quote for works to renew the roof of the block.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 November 2022 chasing a response to his previous email. He said that, following recent rainfall, “streams of water” had been coming into the communal hallway outside the property. He also reported that condensation and mould had began to appear in his bathroom and bedroom. He expressed concern about this due to his partner’s asthma asked the landlord to supply a dehumidifier to help address it.
  7. The landlord responded the same day. It reasonably agreed to provide the dehumidifier and said it would ask its contactor for an update on the roof works.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 November, 18 November and 1 December 2023 chasing this update. He informed the landlord that the water damage in his property was continuing to worsen. He also expressed concerns about electrical safety, as the utility room where most of the water damage was located contained the property’s boiler and electrical consumer unit. He asked the landlord if it could send an electrician to check on this. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to any of these emails or addressed the resident’s concerns.
  9. In the email of 1 December 2023, the resident also raised the fact that the landlord’s contractors had visited the property unannounced. He explained that his partner suffered from PTSD and that unannounced visits requiring access to the property affected this and were detrimental to her health. He asked that all future visits be arranged with him so he could appropriately prepare for these.
  10. The landlord told this service that it had “no disabilities/vulnerabilities formally recorded” for the resident’s household but that it had been made aware of the resident’s partner’s PTSD and asthma during the complaint. An order is made regarding this below.
  11. The resident also said that the landlord’s contractor had inspected the roof on 1 December 2022 and determined that, due to the extent of the damage, it was not possible to enact any temporary repairs.
  12. On 19 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord again. He said that scaffolding had been erected several months ago but no works had been carried out. He asked for an update on when works would commence and reiterated his request for it to arrange all appointments with him in advance due to his partner’s PTSD. The landlord failed again to respond to this email, which led to the resident making his complaint on 20 April 2023.
  13. The landlord’s ‘service standards’ state that it will “try to achieve what we said we would and keep you updated until your enquiry is resolved”. It says it will “ensure [residents] feel confident that we’ve listened to you, understood your needs and take the necessary action” and “be positive and proactive, demonstrating through our actions that your issues matter to us”. The landlord’s repeated failure to respond to the resident’s communications or update him on its investigations of the roof failed to meet these standards.
  14. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord appropriately apologised for the failings in its “level of communication and response” to the resident. It also acknowledged that it should have given more consideration to the resident’s partner’s circumstances, and it was “not acceptable” for unscheduled visits to be carried out to the property.
  15. However, the landlord failed to consider making an offer of compensation for its identified failings. Its compensation policy says that “we may decide that through our actions or inaction, we have caused a tenant to experience stress, upset or inconvenience and as such may look to compensate them for this”. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this would be appropriate in this case and helped to rebuild the damaged landlord-tenant relationship.
  16. As an outcome of the complaint, the landlord said it would “make every effort to improve our levels of communication, ensuring we give full consideration to yours and any other residents needs and circumstances”. It said it was currently ‘scoping’ roof renewal works to several blocks, including the resident’s, but would ask its repairs contractor to carry out any temporary repairs to address the leak, damp and mould. However, the landlord’s roofing contractor had previously told the resident, and presumably the landlord, that such repairs were not possible.
  17. In his request to escalate his complaint, the resident said that he next contacted the landlord on 18 September 2023, sending an email which it “ignored”. He said he then sent a further email on 10 October 2023. The landlord has not provided this service with a copy of either of these emails. However, it has provided a copy of its response to the resident dated 12 October 2023 and did not dispute receiving either of the emails.
  18. Within the landlord’s email of 12 October 2023, it advised that the roof renewal was scheduled to be completed by the end of the financial year. It again offered to consider temporary repairs in the interim – indicating that it had not followed through on its stage 1 response’s commitment to have its contractor arrange these. The resident responded the same day. He asked if the landlord could provide a dehumidifier again to try and “manage the mould” until it had replaced the roof.
  19. The landlord failed to respond to this email and the resident emailed it again on 8 November 2023 asking for an update. After again receiving no response, the resident requested to escalate his complaint on 23 November 2023.
  20. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been “delays and a lack of communication” regarding the roof repairs, which had caused the resident to chase it for responses. It said that “the lack of communication is inexcusable, especially after we assured you this would improve, and I am very sorry for any distress and inconvenience this has caused you”. However, despite this it again failed to consider making an offer of compensation.
  21. The landlord confirmed the roof would be renewed before the end of the financial year. It said it would contact the resident with a start date for the works in January 2024. The landlord failed to keep this commitment which led to the resident chasing it again for an update on 31 January 2024. This is likely to have further undermined the landlord-tenant relationship and the resident’s faith in a timely resolution to his complaint.
  22. The roof renewal was subsequently delayed and not completed until summer of 2024. The Ombudsman appreciates that works of this scale can be subject to such delays due to the level of resources required and logistics involved. However, this is likely to have caused further distress to the resident, who had been told the renewal would be completed by the end of March 2024.
  23. It is unclear what, if any remedial works the landlord carried out in the resident’s property following this. A recommendation is made regarding this below.
  24. In summary, the landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s communications and provide updates on the progress of works. Despite acknowledging this in both of its complaint responses, the landlord still failed to update the resident in January 2024 as it had committed to. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused but failed to make an offer of compensation to the resident despite the case meeting the criteria of its compensation policy. Due to this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs and associated leaks.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the roof repairs and associated leaks.
    2. Apologise for its maladministration identified by this investigation.
    3. Ensure it has appropriately recorded the resident’s partner’s vulnerabilities on its systems. Including any necessary reasonable adjustments.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to carry out a case review of the resident’s complaint. This should seek to determine why the communication failings identified by this investigation occurred, and to outline how it proposes to prevent these from happening again in the future.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to establish if there is any outstanding water damage to the property which needs to be ‘made good’. If the resident has repaired all damage at his own expense, the landlord should consider an offer of further compensation to reimburse him for this or referring him to its insurers to make a claim for this.