Kingston upon Thames Council (202009426)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009426

Kingston upon Thames Council

21 June 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:
1. The time taken to arrange/undertake the repairs reported, following the installation of the resident’s new boiler.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a chip in the edge of the kitchen table.
3. The landlord’s operative arriving at the resident’s property earlier than expected.
4. The landlord’s decision not to install a bulldog radiator valve.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the boiler pipe boxing.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of black marks on several parts of the property.
7. The landlord’s operative arriving at the resident’s property without the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
8. The action taken by the landlord to repair the resident’s bannister.

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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all of the evidence, and in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that points (a) and (b) of the above complaint definition are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is as under complaint reference 201916059 the Ombudsman has already investigated and set out its position in relation to these points. In respect of the time taken to arrange the resident’s repairs, the Ombudsman has already determined that there was no maladministration and has set out the reasons for this. What’s more, in relation to the resident’s kitchen worktop, the landlord had already made clear its position (with regards to liability). This too was reviewed and commented on in paragraph 87 of the above quoted case.
Under paragraph 39 (o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint (or parts of a complaint) which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. Subsequently, the Ombudsman has only investigated the following matters:
1. The landlord’s operative arriving at the resident’s property earlier than expected;
2. The landlord’s decision not to install a bulldog radiator valve;
3. The landlord’s handling of your request to replace the boiler pipe boxing;
4. The landlord’s handling of your reports of black marks on several parts of the property;
5. The landlord’s operative arriving at the resident’s property without the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); and
6. The action taken by the landlord to repair the resident’s bannister.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a Secure Tenant living in a two-storey maisonette.
Following the replacement of the resident’s boiler, she advised that the boxing which existed below it was no longer big enough to contain the new pipes. The resident therefore requested that the landlord replace the old boxing, which the landlord honoured.

Legal and policy framework

Tenancy agreement

The Ombudsman has reviewed the tenancy agreement. Of particular relevance, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord will make good any damage caused during repairs or the resident may be entitled to an allowance to redecorate.

Summary of events

Between 22 and 24 September 2020 the landlord undertook repair work at the resident’s property. It would appear that during this time, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the works completed, however the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this.
A follow up email was sent to the landlord on 24 September 2020. Within this, the resident stated that the operative had painted the pipe boxing in matt white paint, however this was previously done in Gloss to enable the resident to wipe it down. She requested that that the operative revisit to paint this with proper gloss paint.
On 26 September 2020 the resident explained to the landlord that she wished to raise a formal complaint. She expressed:
1. The landlord’s decorator had turned up an hour early and was not wearing the appropriate PPE (a mask).
2. After some discussion, the decorated had filled the hole in the bannister which it/ the landlord(?) had originally caused, but with caulk and not proper filling for wood. This was then painted over very roughly, with no undercoat causing the area to stand out against the surrounding bannister. Lumps of paint were left.
3. The box made to cover the boiler pipes was done so from old bits of wood which was then given a coat of matt white paint. This could not be wiped clean. The resident expressed that the previous box was professionally made with a laminate veneer surface.
4. A supervisor had agreed that she would be provided with new bulldog valves which displayed the numbers more clearly. Instead, however, the valves were replaced with like for like items. These were not fit for purpose.
5. The landlord had not repaired the damage caused in replacing her boiler. There were still black marks on the wall landing and wooden surrounds, on the wall halfway up the stairs, on the bathroom door and on the bath.

The resident asserted that the landlord had breached its repair responsibilities.

The landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s complaint on 29 September 2020. It explained that a response would be provided within 15 working days.
On 19 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident informing that it was still waiting on a response from the complaints team. It apologised for the delay.
Following a further prompt from the resident, on 21 October 2020 the landlord provided the resident with an update. It explained that due to the absence of a key officer involved, the complaint response had not been provided. It stated that it was seeking to establish when the officer would be returning.
On 22 October 2020 the landlord offered its stage one response. It stated:
1. Due to an earlier job being cancelled, its operative was able to attend the property earlier than expected. It noted that if the resident had explained that this was inconvenient, the operative would have left and returned at the scheduled time.
2. It advised that its staff and contractors were aware of the PPE required. It apologised if the operative had not observed this, and assured the resident that it would send a reminder to all of its operatives.
3. The new valves fitted were considered to be more reliable and fit for purpose. It was unable to confirm that its supervisor had agreed a specific model to be installed.
4. Caulk was an appropriate filler material for the banister.
5. It had not agreed to address the black marks on the landing wall and skirting board, bathroom door, bath, or hallway up the stairs. These were not the responsibility of the engineer and were viewed as wear and tear.
6. The paintwork for the pipe boxing was appropriate and matched the current walls. In light of the resident’s comments, however, it was willing to repaint this “Brilliant Gloss White” to aid her cleaning. This would not match the walls, however. It advised the resident to make contact if she wished for this to be done.
On 25 October 2020 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two. She expressed:
1. The landlord’s operative should have called to advise that he was arriving early.
2. She had overheard the operative explaining (on the phone) that he did not have a mask. She asserted that the landlord’s contractor obviously was not being supplied with adequate PPE.
3. She could not read the numbers on the radiator valves as they were too small and faint in colour. The bulldog valves in the bathroom were easier to read. She reiterated that the supervisor had agreed to provide her with these. She did not believe the current valves were fit for purpose.
4. Caulk was not suitable to fill a hole in wood. Proper wood filler should have been used. The painting was also very rough, and lumps were left on the bannister.
5. The black marks were not the result of wear and tear.
6. Painting the box white gloss would not be an adequate substitute for the original box which had a laminate veneer. The whole box needed to be replaced with the same material as previously.
It is unclear when the landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman notes, however, that on 5 November 2020 the landlord advised the resident that as part of its stage two investigation, the Housing Manager and Contract Manager would visit the resident’s property on 12 November 2020 to inspect the issues highlighted.
This was rescheduled to 17 November 2020 to accommodate both the landlord’s and resident’s availability. The landlord advised (on 10 November 2020) that as the inspection needed to take place first, the complaint response would not be drafted until after this time.
On 25 November 2020 the landlord provided its final response. It explained:
1. The operative had called the resident before turning up at the property to establish whether she was happy for work to begin.
2. It would remind its operatives of its COVID-19 procedures.
3. Caulk could sometimes be used as an adequate filler, however on this occasion, a latex filler was used. It stated that while it was difficult to see where the repair had taken place, it would agree to revisit to rub down the roughness, and undercoat and gloss the bannister for a second time. It was made clear that newly painted woodwork would initially stand out from the surround areas, however.
4. The current pipe boxing had been completed and painted to match the surrounding wall colour. The landlord reiterated that it had agreed to repaint the boxing in a brilliant white gloss.
5. The old-style bulldog valves were no longer fitted. The new Danfoss radiator valves were now more robust and fit for purpose. It therefore would not replace these. The landlord noted that it had been advised, however, that rather than continually changing each radiator setting, this could be set once and regulated via the thermostat control.
6. Upon inspection of the markings in the resident’s home, the mark on the bath had been cleaned and was no longer visible. The marks on the walls and skirting were not considered to have been made by the engineer but caused by wear and tear, however.
The Ombudsman can see from the internal emails between the landlord and its contractor, that the location of the scuff marks on the walls were considered to be too low to have been caused by carrying equipment, and the dents were likely to be caused by sharp edges rather than a cylinder boiler.
On 26 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord providing available dates for the works to be completed. The resident additionally asked the landlord to confirm that the filling in the bannister would be replaced with proper wood filling and not just repainted. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord confirmed this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s operative arriving at the resident’s property earlier than expected.

The Ombudsman has been unable to confirm that the landlord’s operative called the resident before arriving at her property an hour early. The landlord has provided no records to evidence this despite being contested by the resident.
The Ombudsman agrees, however, that this would have been the most appropriate course of action, as a specific timeslot had been agreed. While the landlord explained in its complaint response that the resident could have asked the operative to come back at the arranged time if an earlier start was inconvenient, this might have put the resident in a potentially uncomfortable position.
In the absence of evidence (of the call), and in the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have apologised for the early arrival. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was done. Given that the resident was expecting the operative, however, although not for an hour, the Ombudsman has not concluded that there was a sufficient adverse impact to identify a service failure. The Ombudsman has, nonetheless, offered a recommendation below to improve the landlord’s service.

The landlord’s decision not to install a bulldog radiator valve.

As there is no record of the conversation, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord did or did not advise the resident that her radiator valves would be replaced with bulldog valves. The Ombudsman must base its decision on evidence and cannot rely on one account over another where evidence is not available. The Ombudsman notes that this was disputed by the landlord in its stage one response.
In any case, while the Ombudsman recognises that this was the resident’s preferred valve, as she was able to read the numbers and dials more clearly, the landlord was not required to offer the resident any specific model. As per its repair responsibilities, the landlord was obligated to keep the radiator valves in working order and where these became defective, to offer replacements. While it might have been reasonable, where the landlord was happy to do so, to agree a specific/preferred type of valve with the resident, the landlord was not obligated to do so. It was therefore not unreasonable that the landlord replaced this with a like-for-like model of its choosing.
The landlord confirmed that contrary to the resident’s assertion, the model installed was fit for purpose and undertook an inspection of the resident’s property to satisfy for itself that this was the case. This was appropriate. It was also reasonable that the landlord recommended that the resident configure the radiator setting once and regulate this using the thermostat control moving forward. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a practical recommendation and would have adequately resolved the resident’s concerns with the clarity of the numbers.
In light of the landlord’s explanation and assurance that the new style valves were more robust, the Ombudsman accepts that it subsequently refused to replace these. This was fair.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the boiler pipe boxing.

The Ombudsman notes that following the resident’s report that the boxing below the new boiler was too small to contain the new pipework, the landlord agreed to replace this. The Ombudsman has viewed the images from case 201916059 and due to the amount of pipping exposed, would suggest that this was a reasonable request.
The landlord was not, however, obligated to mirror the boxing that was previously in place. It was therefore reasonable that after replacing and painting the boxing to match the surrounding walls, the landlord refused to recreate the box using the material suggested by the resident. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction that she was unable to wipe clean the box, due to the paint and material used. Noting the resident’s email on 24 September 2020 also, the landlord therefore proposed to return to the resident’s property to repaint the box. This was both reasonable and would have enable the resident to clean the box, should she wish to.
In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the residents request to replace the box (for a second time). The Ombudsman cannot see that this was done within the landlord’s final response, but rather, only an offer to repaint the box was made. Still, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord satisfied, upon inspecting the boxing on 17 November 2020, that the boxing was suitable and while it did not replicate the previous box, was fit for purpose. The Ombudsman has subsequently been unable to identify a failure in service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of black marks on several parts of the property.

Similar to some of the above points, due to the lack of evidence available to the Ombudsman, it cannot reasonably be determined whether the landlord’s operative caused the marks on the resident’s walls, skirting, door, and bath during the replacement of her boiler.
The Ombudsman acknowledges, however, that in response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord advised that it wished to undertake an inspection of the property, to assess the issue. This was reasonable and amongst other things, enabled the landlord to assess the likelihood that the damage was caused by its operative. The Ombudsman notes that as the landlord had not previously accepted liability for this, this would not have been addressed as part of the works undertaken in September 2020.
Following the landlord’s inspection, it concluded that the marks would not have been caused by its engineer. The Ombudsman cannot fairly comment on this decision. In the Ombudsman’s opinion though, it was reasonable that the landlord considered various factors in its assessment of the marks, such as the positioning and the type of scuffs sustained, before arriving at its conclusion. This was reasonable in the circumstance.
It would have been good practice for the landlord to have shared this with the resident by setting this out within its final response. This would have been useful in demonstrating that fair consideration was given to its decision. Still, the Ombudsman has not considered this to be a service failure and has additionally noted that the landlord was able to remove the mark on the bath during its visit. Considering that the landlord had not accepted liability for this, this was considerate.

The landlord’s operative arriving at the resident’s property without the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

In relation to the resident’s concerns regarding PPE, as the landlord confirmed, its staff (including its contractors) were expected to wear the appropriate PPE before entering properties. Its operative therefore should have been in possession of a mask upon arriving at the resident’s property, however it does not appear that this was the case. This was inappropriate and was a fair safety concern for the resident.
The Ombudsman accepts, however, that the landlord recognised this failure and subsequently offered the resident an apology. This was reasonable and proportionate. As well as explaining that its operatives were to act in accordance with its PPE guidance, the landlord also offered the resident reassurance that it would remind all of its operatives of the requirements under its COVID-19 procedure. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was appropriate. In line with the Ombudsman’s principles (in particular, Learning from Outcomes), the landlord demonstrated its intention to learn from its error and to ensure that the appropriate behaviour is observed moving forward.

The action taken by the landlord to repair the resident’s bannister

In the Ombudsman’s view, the action taken by the landlord’s contractors to repair the damage to the resident’s bannister was reasonable. While the resident expressed displeasure with the filler used to repair the damage to her bannister, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord clarified for the resident and itself that the latex filler used was appropriate.
As well as explaining to the resident that such materials are sometimes used for this purpose, the landlord accepted that the paint work could have been improved and was lumpy as reported. It therefore agreed that it would attend the resident’s property to address this. This was reasonable.
While the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord suggested it would take any action to replace the filler, despite the resident questioning this on 26 November 2020, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it had already explained that it found no issue with the current filling. The Ombudsman is therefore content that there was no service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s operative arriving at the resident’s property earlier than expected.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision not to install a bulldog radiator valve.
3. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the boiler pipe boxing.
4. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of black marks on several parts of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of:
1. The landlord’s operative arriving at the resident’s property without the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); and
2. The action taken by the landlord to repair the resident’s bannister,

the landlord offered redress, prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:
1. While it would have been appropriate for the landlord’s operative to have called before turning up to the resident’s property, and while recognising that this may have caused some inconvenience, the Ombudsman has not identified this as a service failure. This is as the resident was expecting the operative’s arrival, albeit an hour later. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord has claimed to have called before arriving but has seen no evidence of this. The Ombudsman has subsequently provided a recommendation below to improve the landlord’s service.
2. The landlord was not obligated to offer a specific model when replacing the resident’s valves. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s assertion that the landlord had previously offered bulldog valves, however as there is no evidence of this, the landlord cannot be held to the alleged promise. The Ombudsman is content that the landlord explained why it had opted for a different model to that requested and also satisfied for itself that these were fit for purpose. As the landlord also upheld its repair responsibility, the Ombudsman has been unable to find any maladministration.
3. Similarly, although it was appropriate for the landlord to replace the pipe boxing for the resident, the landlord was not obligated to replace this with a like-for-like box. The Ombudsman is content that the landlord inspected this and ensured that while different, it was suitable to contain the pipes. Adding to this, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed to repaint the box, as the resident had previously requested, to enable the resident to wipe this clean.
4. The landlord took fair steps in response to the resident’s reports of black marks on her wall. It was reasonable for the landlord to undertake an inspection of the matters reported, to assess the likelihood that the damage was caused by its operative. The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal email that fair consideration was given to the marks and the potential causes, before arriving at a conclusion. While it was not explained to the resident in detail, the resident was advised of the landlord’s position.
5. The landlord conceded that its operative should have worn the appropriate PPE. It subsequently offered the resident an apology and advised the resident of the steps that it would seek to take, in order to ensure that the issue did not reoccur. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was proportionate in acknowledging and resolving the matter.
6. Upon inspection of the resident’s property, the landlord accepted that there was further work to be done in order to put things right. It therefore agreed to return to the resident’s property to make good the bannister by sanding it down and repainting it. While the landlord did not advise on whether it would re-fill the hole, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the proposed action in itself was reasonable. This is as the landlord had already explained that the current filler was adequate.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman appreciates that there may be occasions in which the landlord’s operative is able to attend appointments earlier than scheduled. On these occasions, the landlord should ensure that residents are contacted ahead of arrival to confirm that they are happy for works to commence at an earlier time and should maintain an appropriate record of this contact.