Trident Housing Association Limited (202347549)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347549

Trident Housing Association Limited

20 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. service charge account
2. reports of a leaking roof
3. request to install a lock or door to a bin store
4. associated complaint

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a 2-bedroom, second floor flat. She holds a lease with the landlord (a housing association).
On 3 January 2024 the resident reported a roof leak at her property. At the same time as this report she raised a formal complaint. The resident said that the bin store did not have a lock or door. She asked that this be installed due to concerns over health and safety. The resident also reported that the previous report of a roof leak took 6 weeks to be corrected, and that it had not been fixed correctly as the same water marks had appeared again at her property.
The landlord provided its first stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2024. It said that it could not fit a door or lock to the bin store due to the store being close to the block of flats. Due to the close proximity of the bin store to the flats, it had assessed that there was a potential for a fire hazard if a lock or door was installed. The landlord said it had arranged for the same roofing contractor to complete a survey and determine the condition of the roof. If possible it would complete repairs to any water penetration, and scaffolding would be erected. It also offered £90 compensation to assist the resident in decorating her property.
The resident escalated her complaint in March 2024 as she was unhappy that work promised had not been undertaken. She then referred the complaint to the Service as her escalation had not been acknowledged. Following our contact with the landlord on 19 April 2024, it issued a new stage 1 complaint response on 26 April 2024. As part of the new stage 1 complaint response a new issue was included about the handling of the resident’s service charge.
The resident escalated her complaint in January 2025, and on 6 February 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. following a roof survey, it was confirmed that the roof required complete refurbishment
2. due to the estimated costs of the work it needed to put the work out to tender – once this process is complete it will conduct a ‘Section 20’ with leaseholders
3. the predicted start date for works to begin would be May 2025, but it would tell the resident a more definitive start date once one was known
4. if any further leaks continued the resident should let it know so that patch repairs could be completed to limit any further damage
5. it could not fit a lock or door on the bin store as this would be a fire safety hazard
6. the roof leak complaint was upheld, and it would liaise with the resident once the roof was replaced to undertake decoration work to affected rooms
7. that the information provided at stage 1 about the service charge was correct, and that it was due to review the service charge amounts for the upcoming financial year
8. it had operated outside of the complaint handling code timescales and in recognition of the distress and inconvenience this may have caused a payment of £100 compensation would be made
The resident initially referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 22 March 2024. After receiving the stage 2 complaint response, the resident confirmed that she wanted us to investigate her complaint. She was unhappy with the level of compensation offered, and did not have faith that the landlord would replace the roof as promised.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

It is noted that the resident says she reported roof leaks to the landlord dating back over several years. However, this investigation will focus on the reports from January 2024 which were dealt with as part of the landlord’s complaint process. This is because complaints need to be raised promptly (usually within 6 to 12 months of the issue happening) so that a landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issue while it is still ‘live’.
Therefore, this investigation will assess the landlord’s actions between 3 January 2024, the date of the first repair report and 6 February 2025, the date of the stage 2 complaint response.
The resident has told us that due to the consistent leaks she is now suffering from some damp and mould in areas of her flat. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation has focussed on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate its actions and respond to any dissatisfaction prior to the involvement of the Service. As damp and mould is a new issue that has not been subject to a formal complaint, this can be addressed directly with the landlord via its complaint procedure.
While the Ombudsman can look at the handling of the resident’s service charge account, such as the communication and breakdown of charges, we will not consider the level or reasonableness of a charge. This is better dealt with by the First-tier Tribunal service. If the resident is unhappy with the level or reasonableness of her service charge, she may want to seek independent legal advice.

Handling of the service charge

As part of her contact with us the resident explained that she was unhappy with the landlord as she was unclear about how the service charge was calculated. Following our contact with the resident, we asked the landlord to consider this issue as a formal complaint.
The landlord responded within a week of the issue being raised with a letter that detailed the service charges for the 2023/2024 financial year. It explained its original calculation and that this had been reviewed in May 2023 to a lower amount. It said that the charge had been further reduced after investigation and a reimbursement was credited to the resident’s account on 19 March 2024. It also explained the reasons for yearly increases in the service charge and what the new amount was for the 2024/2025 financial year.
As part of the resident’s escalation request the landlord was asked to look at the service charge again. It responded by providing the same letter it had issued during its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord also provided further information on its review of the 2024/2025 service charge.
After the issue was raised with the landlord it provided clear, detailed and transparent information. It was clear on how the service charge was calculated, what it was for and whether there had been any reimbursements. The response by the landlord was prompt and reasonable. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account.

Reports of a leaking roof

The resident’s lease says that the landlord will maintain, repair, redecorate, and renew the roof.
In the landlord’s repairs policy, it says that ‘typical examples’ of routine responsive repairs include roof leaks. Routine repairs will be prioritised based on the following criteria:
1. vulnerability of the resident
2. seriousness of the fault
3. access to the property
4. personal choice
5. operational capacity
6. response times – all routine repairs will be discussed and the next suitable appointment slot offered
The resident reported that there had been a recurrence of a roof leak on 3 January 2024. At the same time as this report, she told the landlord that she was unhappy that this was a repeated issue and that her newly decorated room had been ruined.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not take any action to deal with the roof leak until 31 January 2024 when it said it would send a contractor to survey the roof as part of its stage 1 complaint response. This does not follow the landlord’s repair policy which says, “diagnostic inspection appointments will be offered and attended to within a maximum of 10 working days of the request”. The time taken it took to respond to the repair request was outside of this timescale and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
It is not disputed that a survey was conducted at the resident’s property following the stage 1 complaint response. This is supported by a phone call note dated 6 February 2024, where it is recorded that the resident said a surveyor had attended her property and that scaffolding was scheduled. It was positive that the landlord followed through promptly with the commitment it made in its stage 1 complaint response to arrange a survey.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it is unreasonable for any responsive repair to remain unresolved for longer than 28 working days. However, repairs can become more complex, where this is the case, the landlord would aim to resolve the repair within 30 days of the diagnostic inspection.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not adhere to these timescales. On 8 February 2024, it contacted a roofing contractor to advise a new job had been raised. However, no action was taken at the resident’s property until 10 April 2024. The failure to take any action for 2 months was unreasonable and increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
There is no log of the contractor’s attendance at the resident’s property on 10 April 2024. However, we have seen an internal email sent by the landlord on 12 April 2024 which says that the contractor could not find the reason for a brown patch on the resident’s ceiling, and that it could spread liquid coating to the roof area. The landlord said that it had spoken with the resident and was aware this was not the first time a roof leak had been reported.
We are satisfied that this shows a contractor did attend the resident’s address and that the landlord was using the history of the resident’s case to try to find a permanent solution to the issue. This was a positive action by the landlord.
On 26 April 2024, the landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint response. In this response it said:
1. an investigation had been started with its roofing contractors to find the root cause of the leak
2. once the report was finalised any required repairs would be promptly completed to rectify the issue
3. that it would contact the resident once the report was completed
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a new survey of the roof following the contractor’s attendance at the resident’s property on 10 April 2024. The new survey was a more comprehensive investigation into the roof of the block. A contractor was instructed to evaluate and produce a condition report for the roof and provide proposals for upgrading the thermal performance and renewing the waterproofing system.
Even though arranging the new survey was a sensible step, there is no evidence the resident was told when it would happen. The information provided shows a gap from 26 April 2024 to the survey date of 7 June 2024. Not keeping the resident informed was unreasonable and went against the landlord’s repair policy which says that it would keep a resident informed of repair work.
The poor communication from the landlord continued between 7 June 2024 and 6 January 2025. After the survey, the contractor recommended that major works were needed to the roof. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord contacted the resident to explain what the survey found or what it would do to fix the leak. It was not until 6 January 2025 when the resident called to chase the landlord because her roof was still leaking, that an update was provided. This failure to keep the resident informed, along with the 6-month delay in doing anything was unreasonable and caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 8 January 2025, the landlord told the resident that after the survey, it had decided that the roof needed replacement. It told the resident this was scheduled for the new financial year. It also advised that it would complete ‘patch’ repairs to the resident’s roof as a temporary step while it was arranging the roof replacement. It was positive that the landlord clearly explained to the resident the actions it would be taking to fix the leaking roof.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord provided more detail on the steps it needed to take to replace the roof. The steps outlined by the landlord were reasonable as due to the scale of the roof works and potential cost. It needed to complete certain statutory processes, such as a consultation with all leaseholders under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
In summary, there were several occasions between January 2024 and February 2025 where the landlord did not act in accordance with its own repairs policy. The time taken to complete surveys and follow up actions was often too long, and the communication with the resident throughout was poor. In the Ombudsman’s view this amounts to maladministration.
In addition, as part of this investigation we asked for the landlord’s records between June 2023 and February 2025. We requested any communication between the landlord and the resident, its contractor and internally. We also requested all relevant repair records. The landlord did provide some of this information, but there were gaps in its evidence. For example, it is not clear what actions were taken following each repair appointment, nor are there contemporaneous records from the contractor or its repairs team providing a description of the work carried out at the time.
The landlord’s limited records in relation to the roof leak has made it difficult for it to fully show its decision making at the time and evidence it had meaningfully and proactively managed the resident’s repair.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord offered the resident £90 to decorate her property. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about roof leaks and offered to complete decoration works once the repairs were completed. While the offer to decorate the property is a positive step to recognising the impact to the resident, the Ombudsman does not consider this, nor the £90 offer of compensation go far enough.
The landlord’s compensation policy follows our guidance on remedies. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure which had an adverse impact on the resident a payment of between £100 to £600 should be considered.
In this instance, there were repeated failures in communication and large gaps where no action was taken. The resident expressed both to us and the landlord that she was fed up with having to consistently chase the landlord for a permanent fix to the issue, and that it was distressing and inconvenient to have to consistently redecorate her property. However, following the resident’s complaint the landlord is replacing the resident’s roof. Even if the landlord’s actions had been reasonable, the resident would still be in the same position she is in now.
Therefore, we consider a payment of £500 to be a fair amount. This takes account of the distress and inconvenience caused but also recognises that there was no permanent impact to the resident because of the landlord’s failures. This is in addition to any payments already made.

Bin Store

The resident’s lease sets out that the landlord handles the common or communal areas. This would include the bin store.
On 3 January 2024, the resident reported that the bin store did not have a door or lock. She said the area should have a lock or a door to keep the rubbish contained for health and safety reasons.
In both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord said that it could not fit a door and lock to the external bin area due to health and safety reasons (a fire hazard). This was because the bin store was up against the block. The landlord explained the reasons why it was unable to action the resident’s request and provided its response promptly. This was reasonable.
While the landlord’s response to the resident’s request was reasonable, it may want to reflect on its record keeping. This is because it did not provide documents requested that would have more robustly supported its decision making. It has failed to show how it reached the decision that fitting a door or lock was a fire hazard and whether it had conducted risk assessments or an inspection of the bin store.
However, the lack of records did not have an adverse impact on the resident. The landlord replied to the resident and gave a reasonable explanation for the denying the resident’s request promptly. Based on the above there was no maladministration in the landlord’s actions.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will:
1. acknowledge the complaint and any escalation within 5 days
2. issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint
3. issue a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of escalation
4. if more time is needed to respond, this will be agreed with the resident
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 January 2024 within its policy timescales.
A response was due by 19 January 2024 but was delayed. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 January 2024 more time to reply and responded on 31 January 2024. These actions were unreasonable as the extension request happened after the 10-working day deadline, causing the resident some inconvenience.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 March 2024 to escalate her complaint. However, the landlord did not treat this as an escalation request and instead referred the issues raised to its repairs team.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that escalation request must be made within 20-working days of the stage 1 complaint response. Therefore, the resident’s request was outside of this timeframe. However, the landlord did not follow its policy and write to the resident to explain the reasons why it would not allow the escalation. This failure caused the resident some inconvenience.
The Service contacted the landlord after the resident referred her complaint to us. In our email to the landlord, we asked for it to provide a stage 1 complaint response by 26 April 2024.
The landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint response to the resident dated 26 April 2024. Based on the email we sent to the landlord this was reasonable. While it would not usually be the case that 2 stage 1 complaint responses are issued, the email sent by the Service on 19 April 2024 indicated that a new response should be sent.
The Service contacted the landlord again on 9 January 2025, to ask that a stage 2 complaint response be issued to the resident. This was after our discussion with the resident relating to the persistent leaks she was experiencing. We asked that a stage 2 response by sent no later than 13 February 2025.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 February 2025. This was reasonable and within the 20-working day timescale. The landlord recognised the failings in its complaint handling and offered the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure which caused the resident some distress and inconvenience, but did not affect the overall outcome for the resident, a payment of between £50 to £100 is appropriate.
In this case, there was a failure in the time taken to respond after the resident’s complaint on 3 January 2024. There was also a failure to explain the reasons it did not escalate the complaint after the resident’s contact on 28 March 2024. However, these failings did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. The resident still received stage 1 and 2 complaint responses and was not prevented from referring her complaint to the Service. Based on this, the Ombudsman considers the offer of £100 compensation to fairly reflect the impact to the resident and this was reasonable redress for the failings found.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the:
1. request to install a lock or door on the bin store
2. handling of the service charge account
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for its failings
2. pay compensation to the resident of £500 for the failings in handling the roof leak in addition to any payments of compensation already made
3. provide us with evidence that it has done the above

Recommendations

If it has not already done so the landlord should pay the resident £100 that it offered in its stage 2 complaint response.