Hounslow Council (202109929)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109929

Hounslow Council

27 October 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 request for repairs to the windows and kitchen flooring at her property.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives on the first floor of a converted townhouse where she has been for 31 years and holds a secure tenancy. The landlord says the resident is registered disabled and has mobility issues.

The tenancy agreement

The Secure Tenancy Agreement for the property dated 1992 shows the council’s responsibility for keeping the property in a reasonable state of repair including the structure of the property and fixtures and fittings provided by the landlord.

The repairs policy

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy section 3.3 says repairs the landlord will carry out includes windows. Depending on the priority, repairs will be undertaken between 2 hours and 20 working days. Section 11 covers major repairs and says this may include replacement windows, and if planned for imminent planned programme, a repair will be postponed.

The complaints policy

The landlord’s Corporate Complaints, Comments and Compliments Policy says complaints will be responded to within 15 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two.

Summary of events

On 16 April 2021 the resident reported that the windows were blown in the living room and on 21 April 2021 she reported that the kitchen flooring was lifting. The landlord inspected the property on 12 May 2021 and agreed to replace three windows in the bathroom, toilet, and lounge. The resident was advised that the frames would not be replaced as they were functioning, and the rear windows did not require repair or replacement.
A flooring contractor also attended the property in May 2021 and confirmed that the lino was to be renewed.
A complaint was logged following a call on 28 May 2021. The resident reported that three windows had been identified for replacement but despite several calls to Customer Services, she was unable to find out when the work would be completed. Work had been done to the kitchen floor, but she had removed the beading and was still waiting for new flooring.
A glazier attended on 15 June, and three sealed units were ordered.
On 17 June 2021, a response to the stage one complaint was issued:
1. The resident’s complaint was that no updates were provided on outstanding window and floor repairs.
2. It was recognised that there had been previous inspections of the windows and flooring but no progression on the orders. This left the resident unclear and this had been frustrating. The landlord agreed to follow up on the outstanding works and revert with an action plan.
3. The landlord had arranged for a flooring contractor to attend the resident’s property in May with options for the kitchen floor, but the resident chose an option which was not nonslip. On 16 June the resident was advised that only a nonslip flooring would be provided due to health and safety guidance, and that the landlord would contact the resident to arrange another appointment to select a colour.
4. The landlord had inspected the windows on 12 May, and it was agreed that three double glazed windows would be replaced. The resident was advised that the window frames would not be replaced as they were functioning to its specification. It was also decided that the rear windows did not need to be changed or repaired. The rear windows had an estimated replacement date of 2029. Subsequently, it was agreed that the windows that would be replaced would be booked for 15 July. The resident wished to escalate that the rear windows would not be done, as they were old.
5. The resident chased the matter on 19, 24 and 27 May and was not contacted until 10 June.
6. The landlord concluded that it appreciated the resident’s frustration at waiting for an update for three weeks and the complaint was upheld. Feedback would be provided, and a project was in place to improve response times for queries.
7. Contact details, an apology and further complaint escalation rights were provided.
The resident requested a stage two complaint investigation on 30 June 2021. She felt the stage one response was not satisfactory:
1. The windows were in extremely poor condition and needed replacing, it was not acceptable to repair them. The windows were 28 years old, and she had been told that they were not due for replacement in 2029.
2. She had been told that the kitchen floor would be replaced like for like. This was not acceptable to her, the current flooring had glitter, which got caught in the mop.
3. The resident said that she would take legal action against the landlord if this was not sorted out urgently.
On 13 July 2021, a surveyor completed a detailed inspection report concerning the windows and kitchen floor repairs. It found as follows:
1. The resident did not want the vinyl flooring as the ‘glitter’ tears her mop but most of the flooring the landlord uses has this, to stop slipping.
2. The resident had raised issues with the double glazing to the lounge, including that the handle was too stiff.
3. The lounge glazing had condensation and one window was incorrectly installed inside out, there were issues with sealant, the glazing bar was not level, and the handle was stiff. There were also issues with the kitchen and back bedroom windows. The resident was advised to contact an occupational therapist about her difficulty using the windows.
4. The surveyor concluded that once the windows were in working order and repairs were carried out, the windows would be in ‘optimum condition’.
5. The lino on the kitchen floor had a hole in the centre from wear and tear and the floor was slightly uneven, and where beading had been removed, the lino was short of the skirting board. The resident had been advised that nonslip lino would reduce the risk of an accident.
6. A schedule for the repairs was drawn up, including levelling the kitchen floor, and replacing lino, repairing windows and replacing two units, and removing and correctly installing other units.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord wrote and confirmed the work to be done to the resident’s property. The windows would be repaired or replaced as appropriate and the landlord was trying to find a solution to installing a safe lino flooring, without glitter.
A stage two complaint response was issued on 28 July 2021:
1. The stage one response had focused on the failure to update the resident on the progress of repairs to her windows and flooring.
2. The complaint was upheld in the letter of 17 June 2021 and the resident advised that the work on the windows would be undertaken, but that the additional windows would not be replaced.
3. The resident had spoken to the complaints team on 30 June 2021 and highlighted how her disability affected her and the outcome of the complaint had caused her distress.
4. The resident felt the windows were in extremely poor condition and needed replacing and did not believe it was acceptable to repair them. The resident was told the floor would be replaced like for like which was not acceptable as the glitter got caught in the mop.
5. Following a phone call on 30 June 2021, the issues were expanded to include other problems with the opening of windows and the new windows being the wrong way up.
6. The resident had rejected the proposed nonslip flooring.
7. A further inspection was carried out on 13 July 2021 which recommended installation of the proposed nonslip flooring and various window repairs. The window repairs were agreed in phone calls of 15 and 19 July 2021. The resident’s housing officer would contact her to support an application for occupational therapy (OT) to assess the possibility of adaptations to enable easier opening of the windows.
8. The resident was reminded that the landlord would only fit nonslip flooring in the kitchen, and it was considered that there were some acceptable options which would be shown to the resident on 28 July 2021, when the work on the windows would be discussed as well.
9. The complaint was partially upheld as, although the information about the window was correct, the resident should have been offered support to refer to OT before she had to complain. The landlord also said that whilst it was correct to say that only nonslip flooring would be laid, it should have considered other nonslip flooring before the matter was escalated. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and informed her about escalating the matter externally.

Since the final response letter

The resident has communicated with this Service several times since the final response letter. She was unhappy as guidelines say that windows should be replaced every 20 years and the landlord’s inspectors were not qualified glaziers. The resident had difficulty opening the windows and her daughter opened the window on the balcony and it fell out and was hanging by a thread. The landlord was choosing disability discrimination, and this has made her feel anxious. Her privacy was invaded, and she felt drained.
A further site visit was undertaken on 18 August 2021 to measure for the kitchen and rear bedroom windows and the landlord wrote to the resident on 28 September 2021 to confirm that the windows were inspected and found to be adequate, apart from the rear kitchen and bedroom windows which would be replaced. The kitchen flooring would be replaced and was due to be programmed in the near future. Staff had found it difficult to discuss things with the resident in person and over the phone as she gets angry and shouts. Staff were reluctant to visit unless in pairs. The resident had a right to complain and escalate the complaint, but her behaviour had been unacceptable.
The landlord has outlined the current status with the repairs, that the resident had selected a lino colour and the landlord was getting a date for this to be done. A more expensive flooring had been agreed for the resident.
In respect of the windows, the contractor would arrange scaffolding to replace two windows, although there were still problems as the resident was demanding all the windows be replaced. The rejection of the specification of works by the resident and multiple call outs for second and third opinions had caused delays processing the repair.
On 12 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and asked if it would replace the bathroom and toilet windows while the scaffolding was up. She also wanted to know when workers were going to change the double glazing for triple glazed windows. She stated that she had no contact from the OT as had been promised three months before.

Assessment and findings

The resident has stated that the issue of the windows and flooring have caused her distress, and this is not underestimated by this Service. There has been uncertainty and delay in the resident being updated about the progress of the repairs which she has stated has been frustrating. Her vulnerability is noted and has been taken into consideration in the investigation of this complaint.
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord should keep the property in a reasonable state of repair to include the structure of the property and fixtures and fittings provided by the landlord.
In this instance, the landlord has shown that it conducted adequate surveys of the property, agreed to repair windows where there were problems, and replace others. The windows have met the landlord’s standards upon inspection as it has based its findings on inspections of the property. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its expert operatives concerning the condition of its properties, as it did on this occasion. This Service, therefore, has no basis on which to decide that the findings were inaccurate. The landlord has therefore met its obligations in keeping the windows in a ‘reasonable state of repair’. It is understood that the resident would like new windows and feels that the wait for the scheduled replacement in 2029 is too long, however the landlord is under no obligation to replace the windows before then.
The landlord has taken reasonable steps to facilitate the resident’s particular wishes over the type of flooring, although it was not obliged to offer the more expensive alternative.
The landlord has acknowledged failings in both the stage one and two complaint responses. In the stage one response it accepted that the resident asked for updates on the windows and flooring on several occasions and she did not receive a prompt response. It said that as a result of the complaint, feedback would be provided to the teams who were asked to update her, to ensure that any future requests are actioned in a timely manner. It also said there was a project in place to look at the way requests are processed and improve the response times. This was an appropriate response to the complaint as it indicated that the landlord has considered the effect the complaint had on the resident and how to avoid a repeat in the future.
In the stage two response, the landlord said that the resident should not have had to complain before it considered referring the issue to occupational therapy services, and that it should have considered other flooring options at an earlier stage. This was also appropriate as the landlord had considered other options for the resident, taking her particular circumstances into account. It is noted that any delay in the OT contacting the resident is not a failure on behalf of the landlord but the landlord would be expected to contact the OT if it is informed by the resident that she is yet to receive communication from the OT.
The resident’s claims after the final response letter that landlord staff have treated her differently owing to her disability are acknowledged. While the Ombudsman does not seek to dismiss the resident’s concerns, this is not a matter that we can investigate. The Ombudsman’s role is limited to investigating housing related matters and whether a landlord has complied with its duties and obligations under a tenancy agreement or any relevant policies. If the resident has concerns that she had not been treated fairly owing to disability, this would be a matter for the courts to consider under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010.
This Service looks to see if a landlord’s actions were in accordance with the Ombudsman’s ‘dispute resolution principles’, that is to have a process that seeks to put things right for residents, is fair, and that learns from outcomes. In offering alternative options for the flooring and demonstrating learning from the previous shortcomings, the landlord has shown that it has followed the principles expected by this Service.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident; and considering them alongside its service standards, and its duties and obligations as a landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the windows and kitchen floor at her property.

Reasons

The landlord is not obliged to renew the resident’s windows or replace the flooring with an alternative type.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord follow up the referral to Occupational Therapy for a review of the resident’s property.