London Borough of Redbridge (202109202)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109202

London Borough of Redbridge

24 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s request to be decanted or compensated during repairs to the property:
   2. The resident’s complaint.  

Background and summary of events

2. The resident resides with her partner in a first-floor studio flat where she has lived since June 2019. They have no vulnerabilities recorded but an unrelated email in December 2020 from the resident stated she suffers with asthma.

The tenancy agreement

3. The tenancy agreement for the property gives the maximum occupancy as one person.
4. The tenancy conditions handbook sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. Section 3.1 says the tenant has a right to have repairs done in a reasonable time and may get compensation if this does not happen. 

The repairs policy

5. The landlord’s repairs handbook does not refer to decanting for repairs. It gives the response times for routine repairs as 28 calendar days. 

The housing management procedure

6. The landlord’s housing management procedures section 1.1 defines a decant and section 4.2 ‘decants for major work’ covers when tenants need to be decanted from their home for major repairs.  

The complaints policy

7. The landlord’s complaint policy says stage one complaints will be responded to in 10 working days and stage two in 20 working days.

The compensation policy

8. The landlord’s compensation policy guidelines say that awards for time and trouble will be between £10 – £50.

Summary of events

9. The resident had submitted an earlier complaint for which a stage one complaint response was issued by the landlord on 27 March 2020. The complaint was partially upheld, and compensation of £67.52 paid. 
10. On 22 December 2020 the landlord emailed the contractor to say the resident had reported penetrating damp at the property. The contractor had said it would inspect the property in the new year. 
11. Later in December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord on an unrelated issue and stated that she was asthmatic.
12. On 15 January 2021 the contractor confirmed that the scaffolding was up, and work would be done next week to address any leaks. 
13. The resident later applied for a refund of her rent, which was declined by the landlord on 21 April 2021 as she had remained in the property throughout the works.
14. The resident submitted a complaint on 23 April 2021 (note – the document is dated 23 April 2022):
    1. The complaint was about the landlord’s decision not to reimburse 3 months’ rent relating to outstanding and delayed repairs.
    2. The resident said that correspondence had started on 18 June 2019, and concerned reoccurring leaks, damaged appliances and repairs needed in the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom gutters and balcony.
    3. An MP had written to the landlord on 23 October 2020 and the resident stopped paying her rent for November and December 2020 and January 2021.
    4. She had suffered inconvenience around the repairs and a lack of privacy while contractors were in the property on a daily basis.
    5. She was unwell due to the long-term stress. She had requested rehousing while repairs were done but this was denied.
    6. The resident had no choice but to remain and sought compensation.
    7. She had received constant calls in respect of the rent arrears and had difficulty reaching the correct person to raise concerns with.
    8. The repairs were constant from when tenancy began in June 2019 to February 2021.
    9. The building had presented problems for all the tenants in the block.
    10. There was a long-term unpleasant odour and a problem with pigeons.
    11. She asked for the decision to be reviewed.
15. On 11 May 2021, a stage two complaint response was issued:  

1. The landlord apologised that the resident was not happy with the response dated 27 March 2020.
2. The landlord said that contractors had confirmed that the resident was in situ throughout the period works were going on, and as such no refund of rent would be given. 
3. The previous response, in March 2020, had awarded £67.52 compensation for inconvenience and additional costs incurred while work was in progress.
4. Having considered the complaint again, the landlord did not think a rebate was appropriate and did not uphold the complaint.
5. The landlord would not review the complaint as it was outside of the time frame given in the stage one response dated 27 March 2020. Appeal rights to this Service were given.

16. The resident replied on 11 May 2021 and clarified that the response had no relation to the complaint raised. The £67.52 awarded was relating to repairs in March 2020 but the complaint related to the repairs from November 2020 to January 2021. They had to remain in the property as they had nowhere else to go, and the landlord would not rehouse her, which it had a responsibility to do given the effect on her health. The resident asked for another review of the case or if she should now proceed to this Service.
17. On 12 May 2021, the landlord obtained a list of works done at the property between November 2020 and January 2021 by the contractors as follows:
    1. An extractor fan was fitted, and mastic applied to the bath.
    2. Scaffolding was erected to investigate a leak into the flat below and a membrane was fitted.
    3. All blockages in pipes were cleared.
    4. A radiator leak was fixed in the kitchen and the bathroom radiator overhauled.
    5. The pipes to the bath and wash hand basin were cleared.
    6. A kitchen sink was replaced, and wall replastered.
    7. A wall adjacent to the radiator in the bedsit room was replastered.
    8. Scaffolding was erected outside the kitchen window to allow resealing work around window.
    9. On 15 January 2021 the contractor was called out to check the water temperature, but no fault was found.
    10. The bulk of the work was shown as completed between 7 November 2020 and 30 December 2020, with the work around the kitchen window showing as completed on 13 March 2021.
18. The landlord asked the contractor if the resident had remained in occupation and if it was reasonable to do so. The contractor replied that they believed the resident was in occupation during the period the work was being done, but that a named operative had attended the property on numerous dates and was best placed to advise.
19. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day, stating that it was a further consideration of the matter. It provided her with the list of the works done and stated that the work was categorised as ‘repairs and maintenance’, carried out whilst a tenant is in occupation, therefore no rebate of rent was due. Complaint appeal rights were repeated. Its previous decision was therefore upheld.
20. There is an undated email from the contractor to the landlord which details again work done and when repairs were first raised.
    1. The extractor fan repair was shown as raised on 22 October 2020.
    2. The bath sealant was raised on 9 November 2020.
    3. The roof repair was raised on 16 November 2020.
    4. The issue of blockages and foul small was raised on 17 November 2020.
    5. The leaking radiator was raised on 17 November 2020.
    6. The plastering work was raised on 24 November 2020.
    7. Water pressure and boiler issue was raised on 15 January 2021.
21. The resident replied on 13 May 2021 and responded to each of the repairs from November 2020 in depth. She said that the landlord was at cross purposes and that these repairs had a significant impact on her life. She asked for a further stage two response to allow her to escalate the complaint.
22. The landlord replied on 3 June 2021 and said that the response of 12 May 2021 was being reclassified as a stage one response, so the resident could request a further review.
23. The resident’s MP enquired about the outstanding complaint on 8 June 2021. He said that the resident’s property had outstanding works when she took occupation. As the property was a studio flat, the resident and her partner could not escape the disruption of the works. The resident was told that rehousing would be too expensive for the council. Grounds for the refusal were that the resident remained in situ, but she had no option, and the MP asked the landlord to reconsider.
24. The landlord responded on 14 June 2021 to confirm that the resident could request to proceed to stage two of the complaint’s procedure. The MP asked to do so, and on 13 July 2021 a stage two response was issued. The landlord repeated that the resident had been offered compensation at an earlier stage in recognition of the challenges faced during repair work and remained in situ. The complaint had not been upheld for the same reasons as previously. This was the landlord’s final response, and appeal rights to this Service were repeated.

Since the final response

25. On 14 July 2021 the resident clarified to her MP that the sum referred to was not in respect of the period complained about, but for a damaged laptop from a roof leak which was repaired long before the three months period she now claimed. Accordingly, the MP referred the matter to this Service, explained that the resident wanted compensation for the period December 2020 to January 2021, for delay completing repairs, the way her case had been handled by the landlord and the behaviour of sub-contractors.
26. The landlord sent a letter to the resident, copying in the MP, on 29 September 2021, the attached email described it as ‘an update on the complaint’. The landlord sent a further email with apologies for not attaching the letter previously, on 4 October 2021. This letter has not been provided by the landlord or resident.
27. The resident responded that she wanted the complaint reviewed and that the repairs had recently reoccurred.
28. The landlord was asked by this Service for the letter which was sent to the resident on 4 October 2021. The landlord said it had no record of an email dated 4 October 2021. 

Assessment and findings

29. This investigation is focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that she be decanted or compensated for the extended period when repairs were undertaken on her property, and its handling of the associated complaint.
30. It does not cover the ‘behaviour of the contractors’ as raised by the MP in his letter to this Service on 14 July 2021 as there is no evidence that this issue was raised by the resident during the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate this particular issue, and it would not be reasonable for the Ombudsman to make a finding on it before this. Similarly, the issue raised in the resident’s email of 4 October 2021, that the repair had failed and required further work, cannot be included as it was raised after the final response letter dated 13 July 2021.
31. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord with respect to the repairs. She may do the same regarding the issue of the conduct of the contractors, however, this Service cautions that it may not be practicable to expect an investigation by the landlord due to the lapse of time.

The request for a decant or compensation

32. The landlord’s Housing Management Procedure, at section 1.1, describes decants as when a tenant has to be moved out of their property on a temporary basis to accommodate major works, or where the tenants continued residence will jeopardise their mental or physical wellbeing. Whilst it is not the role of this Service to decide if a decant was appropriate, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a decant.
33. In its email of 12 May 2021, the landlord said that the works were classified as ‘repairs and maintenance’ that are done with tenants in occupation. This was following a request for clarification from its contractor regarding the nature of the work, and whether it resulted in disruption to the resident. A named operative was asked to comment on this as he had attended the property on numerous occasions but there is no evidence that a response was provided. The landlord’s conclusion on the issue was, therefore, based on the usual categorisation of the works undertaken. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this Service is unable to arrive on a conclusion regarding whether the resident should have been decanted.
34. The list of repairs raised and completed in the landlord’s email dated 12 May 2021 would suggest that issues were resolved within a reasonable timescale once the landlord was made aware of the issues. However, the resident’s initial complaint on 23 April 2021 said that correspondence regarding repairs began on 18 June 2019. It also said that her MP had written on 23 October 2020. The landlord had not provided any account logs or correspondence earlier than an email with the contractor in December 2020, prior to the previous complaint response of 27 March 2020 being requested by this Service. This suggests there may be missing evidence.
35. Although the response to the resident on 12 May 2021 only details work between November 2020 and January 2021, the undated email from the contractor to the landlord shows that the leaking radiator repair reoccurred and was reported again prior to the landlord’s response, and several further visits took place before the most recent entry on 5 July 2021. This indicates further disruption after the end of January 2021 which was not commented on by the landlord.
36. It also appears that the repairs were reported earlier than the landlord has indicated and were not resolved until later. For the Ombudsman to be satisfied that the resident had her request for a decant and compensation considered fully, it is necessary for the landlord to provide a more detailed report into the works, including when repairs were raised by the resident. This issue has further been considered in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling below.
37. The resident’s initial complaint in April 2021 said that she was unwell due to the long-term stress of the works, and that whilst she was unable to speak to the right person in respect of her request for a decant, she was receiving calls about the rent arrears. There was a previous email on when the resident stated she had asthma. These health issues do not appear to have been considered or addressed by the landlord in its responses, however, no evidence has been provided to this Service that she supported her claims to the landlord with any documentary proof. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the health issues reported by the resident and the issues raised in her complaint. If she considers that her health has been detrimentally affected by the landlord’s actions or lack of action, then she may wish to seek legal advice on making a personal injury claim.
38. The landlord does not have to decant residents if the repairs do not warrant it. Given that the tenancy agreement states that the property is for single occupancy and the resident is the sole named tenant, the landlord is not required to consider any issues around the property being occupied by two people for duration of the works.

The complaint handling

39. The landlord’s complaint response on 11 May 2021 did not comment on the difficulties the resident had reaching someone to discuss her concerns with. It erroneously referred to the stage one response in March 2020 and said that the resident had already been compensated and was out of time. This suggests a lack of attention in the investigation and delayed the further escalation internally as this should have been a stage one complaint response which fully addressed the concerns in the complaint.
40. Although the resident corrected the error in her email of 11 May 2021, the landlord’s response the next day did not apologise or refer to it but gave a fuller response concerning the correct period.
41. The response was at stage two of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, although the correct complaint had not yet been considered at stage one. The resident requested a stage two response on 13 May 2021, and the landlord replied to say that the previous response was being reclassified as a stage one, and she could now request a stage two investigation. This step was unnecessary as the resident had already asked for this so was delayed in having her complaint reviewed. The resident’s MP then became involved, and the stage two response was issued on 13 July 2021, when it should have been within 20 working days of the resident’s initial request of 13 May 2021.
42. The stage two response then again repeated the earlier error, referring to compensation which had already been paid, and that the resident had been in situ so the complaint could not be upheld. This response indicated that the complaint had not been understood or investigated properly, and that compensation could not be paid for any issues relating to repairs if the resident was unable to leave the property. This implies that if the resident had alternative accommodation, compensation could be considered. 
43. When this Service requested a copy of the letter sent to the resident on 4 October 2021 the landlord replied that it had not sent a letter that day, despite previously providing the covering email. This does not suggest a systematic approach to record keeping and complaint investigation. It may be that the missing letter addressed the previous misunderstandings, but without sight of it, this investigation cannot make a finding.
44. The resident was put to more time and trouble than was reasonable in pursing her complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf  provides for compensation of between £50 and £250 to be awarded where there have been instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. The impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.
45. In awarding compensation, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, in addition to the issues noted above the landlord did not acknowledge the failings within its complaint responses. It therefore failed to make the resident an offer of redress in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its sub-standard complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

46. 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 a decant or compensation.
47. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

48. The evidence provided to this Service is not sufficient to show that a decant was required during the repairs.
49. The resident was delayed from progressing through the complaints process, there were various shortcomings in the landlord’s response to the complaint and it failed to provide comprehensive records to enable the investigation of the matter.

Orders

50. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:

1. Pay the resident £125 for the failings in the complaint handling. This sum is also in consideration of the inadequate record-keeping which impacted on the investigation of this matter.

Recommendations

51. It is recommended that the landlord remind all salient staff of the importance of investigating the correct issues being complained about.
52. The landlord should consider improving on its record keeping practices as this would aid the maintenance of an audit trail which could be useful in investigating any issues.