Industry News


West London council slated by Ombudsman over roof leak lasting six years


A


series of complaint handling failures by the London Borough of Ealing led to a lengthy and frustrating delay for a resident in


getting a leaking roof replaced, causing damp in her flat and impacting on her health. Te leaseholder complained in 2019 that she


had been affected by extreme mould throughout the property for a number of years. Te council initially identified that the flat’s roof needed to be replaced aſter an inspection in 2015. Te council said this would be included


in its next planned programme of works but would complete temporary work to address the roof leak that was causing the damp. Te resident complained the temporary work was of a poor standard and the ongoing dampness had a bad impact on the property, her health and her finances. In its response the council focused on


the single issue of the delay to the roof replacement works referring to procurement issues and then COVID-19 related issues. It failed to address the other issues raised by the resident. Te council also failed to escalate the complaint as requested by the resident and missed her response to its stage two complaint. Tis resulted in a protracted and unsuccessful complaints process. Te Ombudsman found severe


maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling and maladministration for its response to the resident’s reports about water coming into her flat and the repairs carried out. It ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £3,600 for the unreasonable delay in completing major


Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman, said: “It is clear that the resident experienced a significant detriment over an extended period of her time. She encountered significant difficulty in progressing her complaint, even with our assistance, and did not receive a final response at any point”


works to the building, for the standard of temporary works to resolve the issues and for its complaint handling.


SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENT Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman, said: “It is clear that the resident experienced a significant detriment over an extended period of her time. She encountered significant difficulty in progressing her complaint, even with our assistance, and did not receive a final response at any point. Te landlord’s consideration of her complaint lacked customer focus and led to a deterioration in the landlord and resident relationship. “While it was appropriate to complete temporary


repairs, the timeframe that the resident has been asked to wait for these works, approximately six years, to take place is not reasonable.” A spokesman for the council, said: “While we


are disappointed at the persistent failure of service execution that have led to the Ombudsman’s determination of maladministration, we welcome this as an opportunity to learn lessons, review our


working practices, and put in place new measures to ensure there is not a repeat of the issues identified in this case. “With water ingress first identified in 2015,


temporary repairs were made while a full replacement of the roof was planned to take place in 2018 as part of a major works programme. Due to procurement issues the Council was unable to call on contractors to carry out these types of works until 2020. In the interim, we were only able to carry out responsive ‘patch’ repairs in response to further reports of water ingress. We have learnt a number of lessons from this case, and have put in place, and plan to implement, improvements.” In a separate case, which also resulted in a


finding of maladministration, the Ombudsman ordered Great Yarmouth Borough Council to pay a tenant £1,700 in compensation on top of the council’s original payment of £500 for failing to deal with mould growth throughout the resident’s home that was causing damage, and then delayed in putting right faulty improvement works that worsened the situation.


Another council refers itself to regulator over H&S failings


A unitary council on the south coast of England has referred itself to the Regulator of Social Housing over shortcomings in its electrical and fire safety work to tenants’ homes, leading to a probable breach of the Home Standard. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council


manages 9,560 homes which are split into two neighbourhood teams. Te Bournemouth stock of 5,058 homes is directly managed by the council, while the Poole stock of 4,502 homes is managed by an ALMO. Te council referred itself “in the spirit of


openness and transparency” aſter it found shortcomings in the council’s electrical safety programme, which it said was “particularly affected


by the COVID-19 pandemic as the work requires access to the whole of a property for a considerable period of time”. An action plan was put in place aſter it identified


several issues in late October, which included targeting resources, contracting additional subcontractors and refocusing its in-house team. It has been carrying out weekly checks in communal areas and a programme of checks to reassure and prioritise the most vulnerable tenants and properties “as quickly as possible”. Late last year the council found 780 outstanding


electrical safety inspections, with some properties having never been inspected. It also found 19 outstanding “high-priority” fire safety inspections


20 | HMMFebruary/March 2022 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


and a number of issues found with recording cases. 18 domestic properties and 64 communal areas had never been inspected. A review in the third quarter of 2021/22 revealed


that 19 high-priority actions identified by fire risk assessments between 2016 and 2020 were still outstanding in Bournemouth. Tere were also 189 medium-priority actions outstanding. Te council expected all outstanding fire


safety work to have been completed by the end of January and for the backlog of electrical inspections to be cleared by spring 2022 at the latest. It expects the implementation of a new IT system will help to better manage fire safety work in the future.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60