West Northamptonshire Council (202319720)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319720

West Northamptonshire Council

28 February 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 a guttering repair.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a flat located within a block of flats.
During 2021 the landlord carried out planned investment work to the block. This included the installation of new windows, fascias, soffits and guttering. The landlord completed the work in November 2021.
On 18 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that the guttering outside his property was leaking. He said:
1. he originally reported the leak in September 2022.
2. the landlord sent a repair operative to attend to it in March 2023. However, the operative arrived at the property without a ladder and was therefore unable to carry out any work. The operative never returned.
3. as he had heard nothing further from the landlord, he raised a further repair request. The landlord advised him the repair would take place in July 2023.
4. he was unhappy at how long it was taking the landlord to resolve the issue.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 25 April 2023. It said:
1. it had delayed in resolving the leak as the job was initially raised as a repairs job when it should have been raised with the planned investment team.
2. it had asked the contractor that installed the guttering in 2021 to carry out an inspection. It would let the resident know once the contractor had confirmed an appointment time.
3. it was sorry that the resident was unhappy at how long it was taking to reach a resolution.
4. it was sorry for the inconvenience caused by the operative attending his property without a ladder.
The resident asked the landlord on the same day, 25 April 2023, to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He explained he was unhappy that the landlord had not yet given him a date for when it would carry out the repair. He said in a follow up email the next day that water was hammering on his window when it rained and that he should not have to “wait months” for the landlord to resolve this.
The contractor inspected the guttering on 2 May 2023. It told the landlord that the guttering was not damaged but was full of silt, moss and leaves. It said this had caused the guttering to overflow and confirmed it had cleared it away.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day, 2 May 2023, and advised him of the outcome of the contractor’s inspection. It said that it hoped this resolved the issue and that it therefore would not be escalating the complaint to stage 2.
On 22 May 2023 the resident rang the landlord and asked again to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said the recent visit by the contractor had not resolved the issue as the guttering was still leaking.
The landlord carried out a drone survey of the guttering on 13 June 2023. Based on the survey findings it instructed the contractor to clean the guttering, fit a new gutter brush, renew the stop end, and check the downpipe connections. The contractor carried out this work on 6 July 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint on 3 August 2023. It said:
1. there had been ongoing problems with overflowing gutters which the resident had “reported and chased on several occasions”. It apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the issue.
2. it had recently spoken on the phone to the resident about his complaint. He confirmed that the works carried out on 6 July 2023 were “completed to [his] satisfaction” and that he was “happy to close the complaint”.
3. it would communicate learning from the complaint to its staff.
At that time the landlord’s complaints process included an optional third stage in which the resident could ask a complaints panel to review his complaint. If he did not wish to avail of this option, he could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman at the end of stage 2.
The resident asked the landlord on 14 August 2023 to refer his complaint to the stage 3 complaints panel. The landlord responded on 29 August 2023 and said it would not refer the complaint to the panel. It said that in line with its complaints policy, this was on the grounds that it involved “an issue that has already been suitably considered through [its] complaints process and concluded”. It confirmed the complaint had therefore reached the end of its internal complaints process.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 September 2023. He told us that he wanted the landlord to fully repair the guttering and compensate him for the time and trouble he had spent in pursuing the issue. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling and its refusal to escalate his complaint to stage 3 of its process.
Following this, the resident continued to report to the landlord that the guttering was leaking. It sent a surveyor and its contractor to investigate the “root cause” of the issue on 18 October 2023. They reported to the landlord that a large build up of moss on the roof was slipping into the guttering during heavy rain. They also found that leaves falling from a nearby tree was causing the guttering to block. The landlord therefore carried out work to reduce the tree height, remove the moss and add an additional downpipe.
The resident was not satisfied that this further work resolved the issue. He told the landlord that the water was leaking through the guttering, rather than flowing over it due to blockages. He sent it videos as evidence of this. He continued to ask the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 3 and for it to compensate him. It refused to escalate the complaint. On 8 November 2023 it offered him a £150 “goodwill payment”.
The resident has continued to report to the landlord that the guttering is leaking. The landlord told us on 12 February 2025 that while it checks the guttering each time the resident complains, its contractors have confirmed “they are not blocked”. It recently responded at stage 1 to a further formal complaint from the resident about the issue. At that time of its update to us in February, a stage 2 response was pending.
The resident told us on 18 February 2025 that water continues to leak through the guttering and hammer on his windows when there is heavy rain. He advised us that the main outcome he seeks is for the landlord to repair the guttering.

Assessment and findings

Handling of a guttering repair

The landlord is responsible under the tenancy agreement for keeping guttering and external pipes in good repair. The landlord does not dispute this. Its policies or website do not specify the timeframes within which it will complete these repairs. However, it advised us that the guttering repair in this case was a non-urgent repair which it should have completed in no more than 90 days.
The landlord accepted in both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses that it delayed in completing the repair following the resident’s initial report in September 2022. It explained this was due to the report being logged with the wrong team and appropriately apologised for this.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response, issued on 25 April 2023, that it would arrange for the contractor who installed the guttering to inspect it. It followed through on this commitment and the contractor attended the property a week later on 2 May 2023. The contractor reported that the guttering was not damaged but was full of silt, moss and leaves. It told the landlord this had caused the guttering to overflow and confirmed it had cleared it away. While we recognise this did not fully resolve the issue given the resident’s later reports, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its suitably qualified contractor at that time.
Later that month the resident reported to the landlord that the guttering was still leaking. It appropriately responded to this report by carrying out further investigations. This included a drone survey on 13 June 2023. Following this, it instructed its contractor to carry out further work to the guttering on 6 July 2023. It was once again reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractor’s advice at that time, which was that there were no other faults with the guttering and the issue had been resolved.
Prior to issuing the stage 2 response on 3 August 2023, the landlord spoke on the phone to the resident. We have not seen a record of the phone call. However, the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that during the phone call the resident expressed satisfaction with the repairs carried out and was “happy to close the complaint”.
We recognise that the resident would not have known if the July 2023 repair had fully resolved the issue until the next time there was a prolonged period of heavy rain. Therefore, even though he told the landlord during the stage 2 complaint investigation that he was satisfied with the repair, that did not preclude him from raising further concerns at a later date. We would expect the landlord to take any further reports seriously and to investigate. We note that:
1. it carried out further investigations and repairs in October 2023.
2. in early 2025 it issued a stage 1 response to a further formal complaint from the resident about the guttering. As of 12 February 2025, it was processing the new complaint at stage 2.
If the resident is unhappy with the stage 2 response to the new complaint, he may refer it to the Ombudsman. We will determine at that stage whether there are new facts or evidence, not assessed in this report, which would enable us to investigate the new complaint.
Overall, we find that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the guttering repair. This was due to its initial delay in inspecting the guttering following the resident’s report in September 2022. It apologised for this delay in its complaint responses and took appropriate action to attend to the repair. However, it would have been reasonable to offer the resident compensation through its complaints process for the time and trouble he spent in following up the repair.
The landlord’s complaints policy and compensation policy both recognise that financial redress may be appropriate where there has been delay in completing a repair and the resident has spent time and trouble pursuing this. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that a payment of £50 to £100 is a reasonable financial remedy for service failure of this nature. We are aware that the landlord offered the resident £150 as a “goodwill payment” in November 2023. Given this, we do not order it to pay the resident any additional compensation. However, in line with the Scheme, the landlord could and should reasonably have made this offer during the course of the complaints procedure. As it did not, we cannot find that it took appropriate steps to put things right prior to our involvement. For that reason, we have found service failure in its handling of the guttering repair.
We acknowledge that the resident remains concerned that the guttering has not been fully repaired. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the advice of its suitably qualified surveyors and contractors. They have inspected the guttering and advised the landlord there is not an issue with the guttering itself. They have told it that the leaking was due to blockages which they have cleared. The Ombudsman is unable to overrule this advice.
However, we recognise that the resident’s concern is that the landlord has only considered the issue could be caused by blockages. In his view, if this were the case, water would be spilling over the top of the guttering. He has provided video evidence to the landlord that water is leaking through the bottom of the guttering. He therefore is concerned that the issue is with the guttering itself, rather than blockages from external sources such as trees and moss. We order the landlord to write to the resident and explain how it has investigated this concern.
During our complaint investigation we were unable to find evidence of the landlord’s target timeframe in 2022 and 2023 for completing guttering repairs. It does not have a repairs policy but instead has a ‘Repairs and Compliance Strategy 2020 – 2030’. The Strategy requires it to complete repairs within target times, but this document does not state what the targets are. Similarly, its website does not provide details of repair timescales.
We therefore asked the landlord during our investigation to clarify what the target timeframe was in 2022 and 2023 for completing the repair to the guttering. It advised us that it would have been a non-urgent repair which it should have completed in no more than 90 days.
In the interests of transparency and managing resident’s expectations, we recommend the landlord includes repair timeframes in relevant policies when they are next updated. In the meantime, it should publish the timeframes within the repairs section of its website.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint in April 2023, the landlord’s complaints policy required it to:
1. acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 10 working days.
2. issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days. There was no stated requirement to acknowledge the escalation request.
The landlord complied with the stage 1 timeframe by issuing its response 5 working days after it received the resident’s complaint.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 25 April 2023. The landlord sent him a letter on 2 May 2023 to advise that the contractor had cleared the gutters that day. It said it hoped this would resolve the issue and given this, it would not escalate the complaint. It told the resident to let it know if he was concerned about how it had handled the complaint. It advised him that he could also contact the Ombudsman about its complaint handling.
At that time the landlord’s complaints policy stated that “escalation of a complaint is not automatic.” It explained that if an “exclusion ground” applied, it would not escalate the complaint. The policy set out a list of exclusions which, if applicable, meant the landlord did not have to either accept or escalate a complaint. The exclusions included, “following a determination at stage 1, if no further action can be taken by [the landlord].”
The complaints policy stated that if the landlord was declining to escalate a complaint, it would write to the resident to clearly explain the reasons why. It was required to advise the resident of their right to approach the Ombudsman. The landlord did this when refusing to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. Therefore, as it complied with the policy it had in place at that time, there was no failing here.
However, we are concerned at the wide discretion the policy conferred on the landlord to refuse to escalate a complaint. A key benefit of the stage 2 review is to give the landlord an opportunity to consider if it should do anything further or differently. In our view, for the landlord to refuse to escalate a complaint on the basis it cannot do anything further, circumvents due process.
The landlord has since updated its complaints policy. We note that the revised policy retains the ability for the landlord to refuse to escalate complaints if following its stage 1 response, it is of the view it can take no further action. This is not in keeping with paragraph 2.2 of our statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which suggests a limited number of reasons that justify a landlord refusing to accept or escalate a complaint.
Since 1 April 2024, landlords have been legally required to comply with the Code. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor landlords’ compliance. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
We have therefore referred our concerns about the extent of the exclusions in the landlord’s complaints policy to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint again on 22 May 2023. The landlord did not send an acknowledgement of receipt. It issued the stage 2 response 52 working days later on 3 August 2023. This meant it did not adhere to the 20 working day timeframe for a response as required by its policy. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its complaint response. This was a failing.
We note that in its updated complaints policy, the landlord has clarified that it will acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. This is in line with the Code.
The landlord spoke on the phone to the resident prior to issuing its stage 2 response. It asked if he was satisfied with the repairs it had recently carried out to the guttering. It was good practice and in line with the Code that it took the time to speak to him about his concerns prior to issuing its complaint response.
The landlord set out the learning it would take from the complaint in its stage 2 response. It said that it would:
1. remind its staff to carry out preventative maintenance to guttering in areas where properties are near to mature trees.
2. communicate to its staff the importance of customer care and ensuring repairs were attended to in a “timely fashion” so that residents did not need to chase them up.
In line with our dispute resolution principles, the landlord demonstrated in its response that it intended to learn from the outcome of its complaint investigation. This was good practice.
The landlord refused to refer the resident’s complaint to its stage 3 complaints panel. It advised him of his right to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord’s refusal was compliant with its policy at that time which, as outlined above, conferred broad discretion on it to refuse to escalate complaints. We note that in its updated complaints policy, the landlord has removed the third stage of its complaints process. In line with the Code, it now only has 2 complaint stages.
Overall, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This was due to its delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for this service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in its handling of a guttering repair.
2. service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the service failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident compensation of £200. This is broken down as follows:
  1. £150 for the service failure in its handling of the guttering repair. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £150 it offered him in November 2023, this may be deducted from the £200 ordered.
  2. £50 compensation for the service failure in its complaint handling.
3. write to the resident and address his concern that the guttering is leaking through the bottom, rather than over the top. The resident’s view is that this demonstrates the issue is with the guttering itself, rather than blockages from external sources such as trees and moss.

Recommendation

We recommend the landlord includes repair timeframes in relevant policies when they are next updated. In the meantime, it should publish the timeframes within the repairs section of its website.