London Borough of Hillingdon (202109796)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109796

London Borough of Hillingdon

25 February 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. exterior repairs to the guttering at the resident’s property.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
  2. The resident has made reports to the landlord about similar issues experienced by other residents in the block. It is unclear from the information provided whether she was acting as a representative for the other residents in bringing their concerns to the resident and whether she had the other resident’s permission to act on their behalf. The Ombudsman can only consider complaints which are brought by residents or their appointed representatives. As it is not clear whether the resident is the appointed representative of the other residents, we will not consider the issues she has mentioned affecting other residents as part of our investigation. The investigation will focus on the issues reported by the resident that were applicable to herself and her own property.
  3. The landlord’s records showed that it made a decision on 2 April 2020 to close a job for its roofing contractors. It noted that the work would require the suspension of parking for the building, which was currently not being approved due to the increased number of residents staying in and working from home. The landlord noted that this work would be considered after the corona virus pandemic had passed.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 October 2021 to say that the guttering at the front and rear of her block had been defective for “years”. She relayed that the landlord had attended a number of years ago to apply sealant to the guttering but this had since deteriorated and there was mould on the exterior brickwork of the block where the water had been dripping. The resident said that she had chased the matter six times from 6 November 2019 to 30 September 2020 and had been informed that scaffolding or a cherry-picker was needed to access the gutters and the works were to begin in February 2020. She was since told that the works were on hold due to the corona virus pandemic and were to begin on 16 October 2020. The resident said she had been told that it had not been able to gain access on a recent visit and the works were rescheduled for 5 January 2021.
  5. The resident conveyed her dissatisfaction with the length of time taken to carry out the work, saying that this was “not acceptable” and she had expended considerable effort in chasing the matter with the landlord. She asked it to provide a date for the clearing and repair of the guttering, and the cleaning of the mould at the front of the block. The resident said that the residents of the block would need notice to enable them to move their cars and unlock their gardens to allow access.
  6. The resident chased a response from the landlord on 19 November and 9 December 2021. On 14 December 2021, after she enquired about the timeframe for her complaint, the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. Between 3 January and 5 February 2021, the resident requested updates from the landlord on the proposed start of the works on four occasions; it could not provide her this information. It wrote to her on 5 January 2021 to inform her that it needed to extend the complaint response timeframe until 3 February 2021.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 February 2021. In this it explained that the block was a four-storey building and therefore scaffolding or a cherry picked was required to access the guttering. The landlord confirmed that it had carried out an inspection of the guttering and it would need to use a cherry picker at the front of the block. It relayed that it was awaiting a quote for the works; to progress this, its contractor would need to visit the block to carry out a site survey and assess if a roadway licence was required. Once all the necessary approvals were received, work would then start. The landlord confirmed it would contact residents to request the removal of their cars to provide access during the repairs.
  8. The landlord said that it would begin the work as soon possible but cautioned that the impact of the corona virus pandemic meant that it was prioritising work and it “may take time” before it could commence the clearance and repair of the gutters.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 25 March 2021 as she had received no updates about the work to the gutters since its stage one complaint response.
  10. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 9 April 2021 in which it noted that it had visited her on 7 April 2021 to discuss her concerns. It updated her on the progress of the work to clear and repair the gutters. The landlord confirmed that it had approved a quote for the works which would involve suspending parking in front of the block. It advised that it was intending to carry out this work in May 2021 dependent on the parking suspension procedure and cooperation from residents.
  11. The landlord and resident continued to correspond with each other about the works. It explained to her on 29 April 2021 that safety concerns had arisen which may delay the works. The landlord wrote to residents of the block on 10 September 2021 to notify them that works were due to commence on 20 September 2021 and parking around the block would be suspended.
  12. The resident informed this Service on 4 January 2022 that the gutters were cleared and sealed and “an attempt” to clean the mould from the exterior was made. However, she reported that some residents had said that they were experiencing leaks since the repairs. Work was carried out to some of the balconies which she felt was of poor quality and she was aware that work was planned for the interior of certain properties. The resident did not confirm whether these issues affected her own property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident confirms that it had an obligation to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including all drains gutters and external pipes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance factsheet states that it prioritises repairs dependent on their urgency. It provides a target timescale of 90 working days for repairs which fall into its “minor works” category – these are defined as “larger jobs which require more planning”.
  3. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy and procedure provides for a three-stage complaints process, with formal responses due within ten working days at stage one and two. The resident may bring their complaint to the Ombudsman after stage two if it feels that the decision will not be overturned through its complaints process or they can progress the matter to stage three of the landlord’s internal process, if they prefer before approaching the Ombudsman.

 

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering

  1. The landlord had an obligation to repair and maintain the exterior of the property, as confirmed by the lease above. Given the scale of disruption involved in carrying out the work, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to treat the work as “minor works” with an extended target timescale of 90 working days, as specified in its repairs and maintenance factsheet above. Other than the formation of mould on the exterior of the block, it is unclear how the outstanding work has impacted on the resident’s property directly. While this does not remove the responsibility from the landlord to complete the repair, considering the impact of the corona virus pandemic on its ability to carry out works and the likely disruption the repairs would cause to the residents of the block, it was reasonable for the landlord to postpone these minor works due to the effect of the pandemic on its service.
  2. The resident has complained about the landlord’s failure to keep her adequately updated on the progress of the guttering work. While it may have been reasonable for it to assign a lower priority to this repair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide periodic updates and manage the resident’s expectations. It did not provide regular updates and this was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident as she had to chase the landlord for updates.
  3. The landlord’s complaint responses at the first and final stages of its internal complaints process would have been an opportunity for it to explain to the resident why the repairs had not yet taken place. However, while it did update her on the situation regarding upcoming plans for the repair, it did not explain why the repair had been postponed for so long. Considering the length of time the works had been outstanding for, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide a more detailed explanation to the resident and this was a failure on its part.
  4. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £250 where there has been a failure by the landlord which had an impact on the resident but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. In view of this, the landlord should pay the complainant £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of having to chase the landlord for repair updates.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. As confirmed by its complaint handling policy, the landlord’s stage one and final stage complaint responses should have been provided to the resident within ten working days of receipt of the complaints. Its stage one complaint response was issued to her 74 working days after she contacted it on 21 October 2020 to express her dissatisfaction with progress of the guttering works. The landlord should have recognised this as a complaint on that date, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on our website which defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
  2. The landlord failed to recognise the complaint on 21 October 2020 and eventually acknowledged her complaint on 14 December 2020. It then still took 36 working days before issuing its stage one complaint response. The landlord’s provided its final response to the resident in ten working days, in accordance with its policy.
  3. As set out above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for awards of compensation between £50 to £250 where there has been a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact on the overall outcome of the complaint. The significant delays in the landlord’s stage one complaint response would have caused inconvenience to the resident, although this did not affect the overall outcome of her complaint. In view of this, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of exterior repairs to the resident’s guttering
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not effectively keep the resident updated on the progress of the exterior repair and provide an explanation for why there had been a prolonged delay in the work, leading to increased effort on her part to pursue the repair.
  2. The landlord did not recognise the resident’s complaint at the first opportunity and then delayed providing her its stage one complaint response.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its communication failures regarding the guttering repairs.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its delay in responding to her complaint at stage one of its procedure.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Complete the guttering and roof works it has since started and communicate promptly with the resident if any delays or follow-on works arise.
    2. Ensure that its complaints handling staff are adequately trained to recognise a complaint and respond to it within the timeframes specified in its policy.