Town and Country Housing (202413444)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413444

Town and Country Housing

12 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to the roof of the resident’s property;
2. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under a tenancy that commenced on 31 January 1992.The property is a 3-bedroom end of terrace house.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for any of the occupants. The resident has informed this Service that her grandson lives in the property and has vulnerabilities.
The resident’s complaint concerns repairs required to the roof of her property. In her formal complaint dated 15 April 2024, the resident stated that repair issues have been ongoing for 16 years. For the reasons set out in paragraph 24 below, this investigation will focus on the period from 14 November 2022.
It is noted, however, that it is common ground that there is a history of repairs to the roof of the resident’s property. The most recent repair prior to the period under investigation was a roof leak to the top floor bedroom which was reported by the resident on 18 October 2019 and attended to by the landlord.
The resident continued to experience water ingress from the roof. She made a report to the landlord of a roof leak on or about 14 November 2022.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that the landlord raised a job for contractors to attend on 24 November 2022. For reasons which are unclear, contractors did not attend until 13 March 2023.
On 13 March 2023, the landlord’s roofing contractors visited the property and identified that scaffolding was required to allow the chimney to be inspected. It appears from the repair log that the landlord requested a quote for these works at this time but no further steps were taken by it to address the repair.
The resident chased the landlord regarding the repair on 27 March 2023 and provided it with a video showing water ingress through the ceiling of the property and water damage to the ceiling and walls.
The landlord’s repair log shows that between 8 November 2023 and 6 December 2023, it liaised with its contractors and scaffolding was erected at the property. However, no works were carried out at this time.
The resident chased the landlord on 28 December 2023 and again on 3 January 2024, seeking the attendance of a surveyor.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 22 and 23 February 2024. His inspection report noted among other things that:
1. Various repairs had previously been carried out to the front and rear chimneys.
2. Extensive ingress was observed to the front and rear chimneys at high level in the second–floor bedrooms.
3. As various repairs had been carried out and been unsuccessful, it might be prudent to remove both front and rear chimneys. He noted that this would affect the privately owned adjoining property who had a similar issue. The resident had mentioned that her neighbour would be open to sharing the cost for the works.
4. Someone had mentioned the building was listed which would mean planning permission might be required.
The resident chased the landlord regarding the repair on 15 March 2024 and again on 15 April 2024 when she reported that the scaffolding had been taken down.
On 15 April 2024, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord. She complained that the works had not been carried out and she wanted them completed as a matter of urgency. She also wished to claim back the cost of decorating the 2 top bedrooms over the last 16 years which she stated was due to the repair not being adequately undertaken.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the complaint on 26 April 2024 which upheld the complaint. In the response:
1. The landlord noted from the resident’s email that she had had cause to complain about the issue on several occasions, most recently on 14 November 2022. It had not investigated matters beyond that date, as the other complaints had been investigated at the time.
2. It noted that a job was raised on 24 November 2022 for repairs to be carried out to the chimney but this was not attended to until 13 March 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay.
3. It stated that when the repair was attended to on 13 March 2023, it was identified that scaffold was required which was then not done until 18 December 2023 when the flashing was renewed. The landlord was unable provide an acceptable explanation as to why 9 months elapsed between visits and apologised for this.
4. The resident’s request for a surveyor which she made on 3 January 2024 could not be carried out until 23 February 2024 due to long-term sickness within the landlord’s surveying team. Upon inspection, its surveyor identified that they felt the best course of action would be to remove both the front and rear chimneys. The surveyor who attended the resident’s home was then seconded to a new role and these works were left unactioned.
5. It stated that works to remove the chimney and make good the roof would begin no later than 20 May 2024.
6. It recognised that there had been significant delays in completing repairs and failures in it raising works correctly. It offered the resident £250 in compensation and a decorating voucher.
7. In view of its service failure, the landlord had reiterated to its repairs team that they had 28 days to attend to all repairs and under no circumstances should works be left for so long.
The resident responded on 29 April 2024 stating that she was not willing to accept £250 compensation as it did not cover 16 years of having to redecorate not for cosmetic purposes but to keep mould at bay. She considered £4,000 compensation as reasonable reimbursement for the decorating cost and she would accept the decorating voucher to redecorate once the works had been done.
After further communication with the landlord, on 21 May 2024, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. She disputed the landlord’s statements in the stage 1 complaint response that prior complaints had been investigated or that the landlord’s contractors had carried out a renewal of the flashing on 18 December 2023. She complained that the work which the landlord had promised to commence no later than 20 May 2024 had not taken place. She had not been informed and had taken a day off work.
On 7 June 2024, the landlord’s surveyor conducted an inspection of the property to assess the internal damage caused by the water ingress and other repair issues raised by the resident in relation to the windows. The report noted water damage to the ceilings of the front and back bedrooms. It recommended repairs to the blown plaster on the walls, repair of the ceilings and redecoration once the chimneys had been removed, in addition to repairs to 2 windows.
On 2 July 2024, the landlord instructed a chartered surveyor to survey the property and advise on removal of the chimney stacks and Party Wall Act requirements.
On 3 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. In the response, the landlord upheld the complaint as follows:
1. It explained that repairs which had been due to begin on 20 May 2024 had been delayed due to 2 factors. The landlord had had to check whether the building was listed. It confirmed it was not. The second factor was that the removal of the chimneys would affect the neighbouring property which was privately owned. The landlord was liaising with those affected and was in the process of agreeing for the works to go ahead.
2. At the time of the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord believed that it would be in a position to begin the works by 20 May 2024. The landlord apologised for the delay and the lack of communication with the resident.
3. It accepted that there was no record of previous complaints having been raised and investigated as stated in the stage 1 complaint response. It also accepted that the roof flashing had not been replaced on 18 December 2023. It apologised for the incorrect information in the stage 1 response and outlined steps it had taken to prevent this happening again.
4. The landlord apologised for the ongoing poor service and offered the resident £1,550 compensation. This comprised £950 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairs and missed appointments (including the sum of £250 previously offered) and £600 towards costs incurred for redecoration.

Events after completion of complaints process

On 15 July 2024, the landlord’s appointed surveyor provided his report to the landlord. Although this Service has not had sight of the report itself, the covering email to the landlord has been provided. This advised that the landlord should try to agree the works with the resident’s neighbour. This would be cheaper and easier. It advised on options to repair, reduce or remove the chimneys and the requirement to serve Party Wall Act notices.
On 12 August 2024, the resident referred her complaint to this Service. The resident reported that the repairs were still outstanding and the water ingress was continuing, which was causing mushrooms to grow out of the wall. The outcome sought by the resident was for the repairs to be completed, including redecoration of the affected areas, and a revised offer of compensation.
According to information provided to this Service by the landlord, as at 2 September 2024, the works were still outstanding. The owner of the adjoining property, via its letting agent, had agreed the work was needed but had requested additional quotes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident logged the complaint which is the subject of this investigation on 15 April 2024. In it, the resident stated that the repair issues which are the subject of this complaint had been ongoing for 16 years and she referred to contact with the landlord concerning the repair dating back to 14 November 2008.
Whilst it is not in dispute that the issues with regard to the condition of the roof are longstanding, in view of the time periods involved in this case, this assessment has focussed on the period from 14 November 2022. This was the date of the resident’s most recent report to the landlord of a roof leak.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the resident’s property

The landlord has an obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This obligation is implied under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It is also reflected in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy which confirms its responsibility to repair the structure and exterior of its properties.
Under the responsive repairs policy, the landlord distinguishes between repairs which are an emergency, being those where there is a high risk to people or property or there is a vulnerability, and other non-urgent repairs. Under the policy, the landlord aims to schedule works for non-urgent repairs to the next available resource and complete the works within 28 calendar days.
Upon receiving the resident’s report of a leak from the roof on 14 November 2022, the landlord would be expected to arrange an inspection, determine the necessary works to remedy the problem and carry them out within a reasonable time and in any event within the 28 calendar days set out in its policy.
While the landlord raised a job on 24 November 2022 for its roofing contractors to attend, no attendance in fact took place until 13 March 2023. The reason for this delay is unclear from the landlord’s repair records and has not been explained in the complaint responses. This points to a failure of record keeping as well as service failure by the landlord in arranging and monitoring the repairs. The result was a delay of 4 months between the resident’s report of leak and the attendance of the landlord’s contractors.
When the contractors attended on 13 March 2023, they identified that scaffolding was required to allow the chimney to be inspected. However, no action was taken by the landlord until November 2023 to make arrangements for this. Again, the reason for the further delay is not evident from the landlord’s repair log and in its complaint responses the landlord was unable to provide an explanation. These further failings by the landlord in maintaining appropriate records and attending to necessary repairs in a timely manner resulted in additional delay of 8 months.
Scaffolding was erected at the property between November–December 2023 to facilitate the inspection of the roof. No works were carried out at this time. According to the resident, the contractors would not carry out works without the attendance of a surveyor.
The need for the attendance of a surveyor is recorded in the operative comments section of the landlord’s repair log on 18 December 2023. Therefore, by 18 December 2023, if not before, the landlord was aware that a surveyor was required. While appointment of a surveyor was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, the surveyor did not visit the property until 2 months later, on 22 and 23 February 2024.
It is understood from the landlord’s complaint response that a cause of the delay was long term sickness within its surveying team. However, it is also clear from the landlord’s records that between 11 January 2024 and 2 February 2024, there was an oversight by the landlord in sending instructions to the surveyor. This accounts for at least part of the delay in the landlord obtaining his advice.
The landlord’s surveyor recommended in his report dated 23 February 2024 that the front and rear chimneys be removed. They highlighted to the landlord that permissions may be required for these works. On receipt of this advice, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord promptly to check the listed status of the building and to take the necessary steps to obtain consent from the adjoining owner or obtain expert advice on how to do so.
Instead, there followed further inaction and miscommunication. It seems from the landlord’s repair record that on 22 April 2024, it raised a job for works to remove the chimneys without taking steps to obtain the approvals which the surveyor had flagged may be required. This prompted internal liaison by the landlord between16 May 2024 and 10 June 2024 regarding the permissions required. It was not until 26 June 2024 that the landlord established that the building was not listed and it was not until 2 July 2024 that the landlord first sought advice from a party wall surveyor.
The cumulative result of the above failings meant that there was excessive and avoidable delay over 19 months in the landlord responding to the repair. This was outside any reasonable or policy timescales.
Throughout this period, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to regularly update the resident on the progress of the works and when they were likely to be completed. It failed to do so, requiring the resident to chase the landlord on numerous occasions, as noted above.
Given the extensive delay in the repair, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether a temporary repair should be carried out, pending a more permanent resolution of the issue. The landlord had been made aware of the extent of water ingress to the property by the resident’s video dated 27 March 2023, which its own surveyors later confirmed in their reports dated 23 February 2024 and 7 June 2024. The landlord appears not to have considered this at any stage during the period under review.
In summary, there were service failures by the landlord in its delays in attending to the roof repairs, its failure properly to monitor the repairs or communicate with the resident about them, and its poor record keeping.
The landlord’s failures caused the resident detriment. She had to tolerate unpleasant living conditions from water ingress into the property to the 2 top floor bedrooms in the house, one of which was used by her grandson. This was distressing for the resident and this was likely exacerbated by her concern as to the effect on her grandson who has vulnerabilities. The resident was put to inconvenience and time and trouble in having to chase the landlord on numerous occasions regarding the works and missed at least 1 day off work for an appointment which the contractors did not attend.
According to the resident, she incurred significant costs in redecorating the bedrooms over a period of 16 years in order to prevent mould occurring. It is noted that the landlord accepts that the steady ingress of water in both rooms would have required the resident to decorate several times during this time. However, there is no evidence available to this Service as to whether, or what, redecoration costs were incurred by the resident during the period under investigation.
In light of the above, it was appropriate for the landlord in its stage 2 response to accept the shortcomings in the service provided to the resident and to offer redress.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
The redress offered by the landlord comprised an apology to the resident for its failings and, across the complaint, the sum of £1,550, being £950 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairs and missed appointments (including the sum of £250 previously offered) and £600 towards the costs of redecoration. With regard to the outstanding works, the stage 2 response indicated that it was liaising with those affected in the adjoining property and was in the process of agreeing for the works to go ahead but it did not commit to any timescales for the commencement or completion of the works.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the total sum of compensation offered by the landlord for this aspect of the complaint is proportionate to the landlord’s failings and in line with the range of compensation which the Ombudsman would order for failures which have a significant impact on the resident, as happened in this case.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers what the landlord has done to put things right. At the time of the stage 2 response, the works remained outstanding and the landlord was awaiting advice from expert party wall surveyors with regard to securing the necessary consent from the adjoining neighbour for removal of the chimneys. The permission required for the works clearly involved factors outside the landlord’s control and it was therefore understandable that it did not commit in its response to any certain timescales for when they would be carried out.
However, it was not reasonable for the landlord to leave unaddressed the difficult living conditions being experienced by the resident due to the leaking roof, for what was an open-ended period of time, pending consent being obtained. This was particularly so given the period of delay of 19 months which had already elapsed since the resident first reported the leak. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the living conditions of the resident to ensure the property was habitable and consider whether any temporary repairs should be carried out.
It is noted that as at 2 September 2024, some 2 months after the stage 2 response, formal consent to the works had not been obtained.
The landlord did not put things right for the resident in its complaints process and therefore did not act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. In these circumstances, a determination of reasonable redress is not appropriate and a finding of maladministration has been made. Orders have been made below with regard to the outstanding works.
In addition, this investigation has revealed poor record keeping by the landlord in respect of repairs which appears to have contributed to the delays in responding.
The Ombudsman has previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme in relation to responding to requests for repairs, damp and mould and complaint handling (under case reference 202330045). The scope of the review includes confirming that it has checked its records for data accuracy, particularly in relation to ongoing repair problems. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to cases we have already determined. In light of the previous wider order made, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this case that require further action.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident made a formal complaint on 15 April 2024 to which the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure within policy timescales on 26 April 2024.
In the response, the landlord appropriately recognised the delay in its contractors attending the leak in the period between 14 November 2022 and 13 March 2023 and the further delay in it erecting the scaffolding. It appropriately upheld the complaint and offered redress.
However, there were a number of failings in the landlord’s response at this stage, as outlined above:
1. It incorrectly stated that prior to 14 November 2022 previous complaints had been made by the resident which had been investigated.
2. It incorrectly stated that repairs had been carried out to the roof flashing on 18 December 2023.
3. It reassured the resident that the outstanding works would begin no later than 20 May 2024, when it was not possible for the works legitimately to begin without the necessary permissions having been obtained.
These errors suggest that the landlord failed properly to investigate the complaint as required under its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The errors were likely to have caused distress to the resident who also unfairly had her expectations raised that works would be carried out to resolve the problem on 20 May 2024.
In addition, the compensation of £250 offered by the landlord at stage 1 reflected an assessment under its compensation policy of minor disruption, at the uppermost limit of the range; alternatively, an assessment of moderate disruption, at the lowest limit of the range. It is acknowledged that there is an element of discretion in assessing compensation. However, it was not reasonable for the landlord to assess the compensation at this level under its policy, given the length of the time the repairs had been outstanding, and the effect on the resident.
The resident requested that the complaint be escalated on 21 May 2024. It is understood from the landlord that the request for escalation was missed which caused some delay. In the event, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 July 2024, which was 11 working days outside policy timescales.
The stage 2 response appropriately acknowledged the landlord’s failings in its response at stage 1, as outlined above, and apologised for them. Although it increased the compensation offered, the landlord’s breakdown of that sum did not include any compensation for the failings in its complaints handling. Under the circumstances, an award of compensation of £150 would be appropriate.
Attention is drawn to paragraph 52 above and the wider order which has previously been made in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to:
1. Apologise for the additional failings identified by the Ombudsman in this report.
2. Update her on progress of the outstanding repairs and provide a point of contact who will offer regular updates until all repairs are complete.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident the compensation of £1,550 that it awarded for its failings in the handling of the required repairs.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £150 in respect of the failings identified in its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should assess the resident’s living conditions and consider whether temporary repairs or any other steps are appropriate, pending completion of the works to remove the chimneys. It should write to the resident and this Service to provide the result of this assessment with timescales for any actions it identifies.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its actions following the stage 2 response and consider whether it is appropriate to award further compensation to the resident for the period following the conclusion of its complaints process up to completion of the repairs.
The landlord should invite the resident to evidence redecoration costs she has incurred to enable it to consider whether additional reimbursement is necessary in addition to the £600 it offered through the complaints process.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact this Service confirming its intentions regarding the recommendations made.