Oadby and Wigston Borough Council (202000337)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000337

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

26 February 2021

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 response to the resident’s reports of repair issues concerning:

A broken thermostat/heating system.
Bathroom tiling.
A leaking toilet.
A broken door.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer.

The complaint is about the landlord’s complaint-handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
As part of the resident’s formal complaint raised on 11 February 2020, she made reference to having previously sought a transfer to another property. The resident stated that she had requested that a “serious look” be made into arranging a three bedroom property for her family, with a staff member of the landlord having agreed that her living space at the time was “too small” and agreeing to put this to their supervisors. She stated that this had occurred three months prior and she had had no update in that time. The resident stated that she considered the current setup for bidding on a property to be “ridiculous” due to her not being classed as high priority yet living in an overcrowded flat with mould and damp along with medical and health issues affecting her young family. She considered her eldest son’s health conditions to be exacerbated by sharing too little space with his brother. To this end she requested again that the family be moved into a “suitable sized property”.
As part of the landlord’s complaint response provided on 16 April 2020, it accepted that the resident was of the belief that the property was not suitable for her family’s needs. It set out that it operated a choice-based lettings scheme, though the resident did not have a live application at that time. It therefore went on to set out the process for making an application as well as the process for mutual exchange which it noted was another option for the resident.
Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application under a choice-based letting scheme on behalf of the local authority, and the suitability of her property in terms of reasonable preference criteria and alleged overcrowding, are matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. As a result they are outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Background and summary of events

The resident had a secure tenancy with the landlord from 12 December 2010 to 16 August 2020. The property is a two bedroom first floor flat.
The Ombudsman’s investigation will consider the resident’s reports of repair issues from the date there is a formal record of the reports. This must be within a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint, usually six months.
On 8 January 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to discuss what she described as ongoing issues with the property, specifically that:
1. The heating thermometer had completely stopped working, and could only be on at 30 degrees at all times.
2. Tiling in the bathroom needed to be done from a previous leak in 2019, with the resident having been advised to let this dry out before the tiling was re-done.
3. The toilet was leaking again.
The landlord advised the resident that the reports would be passed over to the appropriate staff and she would be receiving a call to get the repair appointments booked in.
On 13 January 2020 an order was raised for the landlord’s contractors to replace the thermostat, retile the bathroom area which had been affected by the previous leak and fix the leak in the toilet. The landlord’s complaint response states that it was on this day, 13 January 2020, that the issues were first recorded. The landlord’s repair records note the issues were listed as an ‘Urgent’ priority with a target date for completion of 22 January 2020.
On 27 January 2020 the resident called the landlord to report that she had not received any communication from the landlord following her discussion on 8 January 2020. On this phone call the resident additionally noted that her front door was not locking or unlocking correctly. The landlord advised the resident that she would have a call back to get the door repair booked in as this was a safety issue.
On the same day, 27 January 2020, the landlord called the resident back and booked an appointment for 4 February 2020 to have the door checked and possibly rectified if necessary. The resident stated in her formal complaint that she had set out on the phone that the appointment would have to be after 3:30pm due to work and school commitments, and that the landlord had confirmed on the phone that this would be noted. The landlord’s final complaint response stated that there was no such request recorded on its files.
On 4 February 2020 at 2:33pm the resident received a voicemail from the landlord’s contractor noting that he was at the property to look at the front door. The resident and her husband were both away from the property at the time. The order was subsequently cancelled. On 5 February 2020 the resident called the contractor to enquire about the status of the appointment and left a message.
On 11 February 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint regarding the outstanding repairs, setting out the timeframe of events as above from the initial reporting of the issues on 8 January 2020 through to the message she left for the contractor on 5 February 2020. She noted that no steps had been taken to address the repair issues regarding the thermometer, tiling or leaking toilet, and that the contractor who had attended to work on the door arrived outside the scheduled time that she had agreed with the landlord.
The resident stated that she also had ongoing mould issues, referring without specific dates to a previous attendance by the landlord’s contractor at the property who had given her advice as to how to treat the mould on the basis that it was caused by lifestyle factors. The resident denied this was the cause, and expressed concern about the impact of the mould on her family’s health and belongings.
On 4 March 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated.
On 12 March 2020 the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident in an attempt to gain access to the property to carry out the work on the thermometer, tiling and toilet. The resident responded asking that the work not be carried out on that date on the basis that the complaint was underway and the plumbing repair issue was involved in that complaint. She wished to have a formal complaint response from the landlord before the work was carried out. The landlord’s repair records note that the repair jobs were subsequently put on hold on 13 March 2020 due to the resident refusing access.
On 16 April 2020 the landlord provided its final complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. The order for the works was first raised on 13 January 2020 with a target date of 22 January 2020, however the contractor did not contact the resident until 13 March 2020 to gain access to the property, at which point the resident requested the work not be carried out on that date. The landlord accepted that the original target date was not met and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It noted however that the repairs would have been completed on 13 March 2020 had the contractor been granted access to the property.
2. The order for the repair to the door was raised following the resident’s report of the issue on 27 January 2020 and an appointment scheduled for 4 February 2020. The landlord noted this was ahead of the scheduled target date for completing the works which was 27 February 2020. Its operative had attended the property on the scheduled day but was unable to gain access due to no-one being home. It stated that while it usually tried to accommodate work and schooling scheduling arrangements wherever possible, there was no such request recorded on the order and it was subsequently cancelled. It therefore did not uphold the complaint regarding this repair.
3. Regarding the reported damp issues, its staff had reported that this was not a damp issue but the result of condensation arising from lifestyle activities and insufficient use of the means of ventilation in the property. It stated that the resident had been advised how to remedy this, and therefore did not uphold this complaint.
4. It apologised for the delay in providing a written response to the complaint and noted it was upholding this element of the complaint. It noted it had advised a particular staff member to manage the outstanding repairs and provided contact details for the resident to contact that person.

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is obligated:
1. To keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, and skirting boards but not including frames, and skirting boards but not including internal painting and decoration.
2. To keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by the landlord for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity, including:
  1. Basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes;
  2. Water heaters, fireplaces, fitted fires and central heating installations.
3. To establish a scheme providing the resident with a remedy if the landlord fails to carry out its obligations to repair.
The tenancy agreement also sets out that the resident is responsible for:
1. The replacement or repairs to the structure caused by loss, or damage resulting from neglect, carelessness or deliberate acts by themselves or any other person permitted by the resident to live in the property.
2. Allowing access to the landlord’s employees or contractors acting on its behalf at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice to inspect the condition of the property or to carry out repairs or other works to the property. The landlord will normally give at least 24 hours notice but more immediate access may be required in an emergency.
The landlord has stated that it does not have a published repairs policy but sets out its key service standards as follows:
1. Emergency repairs should be attended and made safe within four hours of the job being reported, and any follow-up work should be completed within three working days.
2. Urgent repairs should be completed within five working days.
3. Routine repairs should be completed within 25 working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a two stage complaint process:
1. At stage one a complaint will be acknowledged within five working days of receipt, and a “full and detailed response” will be sent to the resident within 15 working days of receipt. If additional time is required to draft the response, the resident will be informed.
2. At stage two a complaint will be acknowledged within five working days of receipt, and a “full and detailed response” will be sent to the resident within 15 working days of receipt. If additional time is required to draft the response, the resident will be informed.

Assessment and findings

Repairs: thermometer, tiling and toilet

The evidence indicates that the resident first reported the issues with the thermometer, tiling and toilet to the landlord on either 8 January or 13 January 2020, the latter date being when a repair job was raised. The landlord’s repairs log records each of the jobs as an “urgent” priority, which requires that they be completed within five working days according to its repairs policy. From this, it can be established that the landlord should have completed the repair work by either 15 January or 20 January 2020.
The landlord’s contractor did not make contact with the resident until 12 March 2020, which was approximately 8 weeks after the latest possible deadline for the works to be completed in line with the policy. This was a significant period of time which would have caused inconvenience to the resident given resident was unable to change the thermostat from its locked temperature of 30 degrees and the toilet continued to leak while the repair work was outstanding. The landlord has not provided any justification for the delays or why the resident was not contacted with an update during this period. Furthermore, the contractor only contacted the resident following her raising of a formal complaint and then an escalation request when the original complaint was not responded to. While the landlord has acknowledged this failing, it would have been appropriate for it to make a monetary offer to the resident to compensate her the period of time that her thermometer and toilet were broken and the tiling work remained outstanding.
While the landlord delayed in responding to the repair issues for a number of months, the resident’s decision not to grant access to the contractor following its communication with her on 12 March 2020 meant that the work remained outstanding despite the attempt by the landlord to progress it. The resident’s tenancy agreement gives rise to the obligation for the resident to allow access to the property for the landlord to inspect reported problems and carry out repairs. In these circumstances, the resident needed to act to mitigate against any adverse impact caused by the repairs remaining outstanding. The refusal to grant access to the property was unreasonable. Subsequently the landlord cannot be held accountable for any delays in carrying out the repair work from that date onwards.

Repairs: door appointment

The repair issues with the door were first raised on 27 January 2020 and the appointment scheduled for a contractor to attend and fix the issue on 4 February 2020. The resident has stated that she requested the contractor attend at a particular time on the basis of her availability, while the landlord has asserted that it has no record of this request. The Ombudsman has not been provided with contemporaneous evidence of the request as the landlord’s repair records do not include this element and the only reference to it is in the resident’s complaint.
The parties have disputed the series of events that took place surrounding the booking of this appointment, and there is no evidence to confirm the request for a particular appointment time was made. The landlord’s final complaint response acknowledged the resident’s statement that she had requested the appointment be scheduled at a particular time and noted that its usual approach was to attempt to accommodate resident commitments such as school runs or work in the scheduling of its appointments. Its position was that it had checked and found no record of the request, which was a reasonable approach to take in investigating the resident’s position and coming to a conclusion based on the evidence. The repair to the door was also completed following the final complaint response and a rebooking of the appointment.

Complaint-handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 11 February 2020. She then went on to request the complaint be escalated on 4 March 2020. The landlord failed to provide a stage one complaint response to the resident, electing to progress the complaint directly to stage two following the resident’s escalation request. The landlord provided its final and only complaint response to the resident on 16 April 2020. This was approximately nine weeks after the original complaint was raised, and six weeks or 30 working days after the escalation request was made.
The length of time that elapsed between the complaint and the response went significantly beyond the 15 working day timeframe set out in the landlord’s policy. Given it had failed to provide a stage one complaint, it was appropriate that the landlord escalated the complaint directly to stage two following the escalation request in an attempt to move the complaint promptly towards a resolution. However the time between the escalation request and the complaint response also went beyond the policy timeframe. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the delays in the complaint process and the inconvenience caused to the resident, advising that it was upholding this element of the complaint.
As part of her stage one complaint, the resident raised a complaint about the presence of mould in the property, stating that the landlord had failed to take reasonable steps to address this beyond the sending of a contractor to visit the property on an unspecified date who explained the mould was likely to be caused by the resident’s lifestyle factors. The reference to mould in the complaint is the only piece of evidence that has been provided on this matter, given there are no formal reports of the issue being raised in a reasonable period prior to the complaint.
The landlord responded appropriately to this element of the complaint, setting out the actions it had taken prior to the complaint process to investigate the issue. The account in both the complaint and the landlord’s response supports the position that it investigated the reports of mould appropriately prior to the complaint by sending out qualified contractors to assess the situation in an attempt to arrange a repair. While the resident disagrees with the contractor’s assessment as to the cause of the issue, in the absence of alternative expert evidence the landlord is entitled to rely on the position of its contractor who was of the opinion that the mould was caused by the resident’s lifestyle factors. The landlord’s complaint response was therefore appropriate in restating the position it had come to following this prior appointment, given she had previously been provided with advice on proper use of ventilation to resolve the repair issue, and no new evidence was provided regarding the issue.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues with the thermometer, tiling and toilet.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the repair to the door.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its complaint-handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond in a timely manner to the resident’s reports of problems with her thermometer, bathroom tiling and toilet. Following its raising of a repair order, the contractor did not take the appropriate steps to progress the repairs until well outside its repair timeframes and only after a formal complaint was made. It failed to act in a timely manner which resulted in the repair issues remaining outstanding for a number of months, causing inconvenience to the resident as a result of the toilet continuing to leak and her being unable to adjust the thermostat. While the landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging its service failure and apologising to the resident, it failed to make an offer of compensation which would have been appropriate in the circumstances given the impact that the broken thermostat and toilet in particular had on her day to day living in the property.

The landlord contests the resident’s account that an agreement was made for the contractor to attend at a particular time on the day of the appointment to carry out an inspection to the door. There is no evidence to indicate that the request for a particular appointment time was made. The landlord considered and investigated the point in response to the resident’s complaint, meaning it was entitled to reach the conclusion it did.

The landlord failed to provide a stage one complaint response to the resident. The final complaint response was only provided to the resident nine weeks after the complaint was first raised, well outside the landlord’s complaint response targets. It did however address the resident’s complaint about mould in an appropriate manner by directing the resident to the advice of its expert contractor, given the lack of contemporaneous evidence of any prior reports.

Orders

The landlord, within the next four weeks, to pay to the resident the sum of:

£200 for the delays in carrying out repairs to the resident’s thermometer, tiling and toilet.
£150 for the failings in its complaint-handling process.