Waltham Forest Council (202110675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110675

Waltham Forest Council

5 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

The complaint concerns how the landlord handled repairs to:
1. The guttering of the building.
2. The shower in the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 14 April 2008. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The landlord has stated that the resident’s vulnerabilities are recorded on its system as:
1. Mobility issues.
2. Extra time required to answer the door.
3. Extra time required to answer the telephone.
4. A notice advising to refer to records for detailed information on the resident’s medical conditions.
The landlord has also stated that the resident had previously requested that his detailed medical requirements were recorded on its repairs system, but due to the complexity of the issues that this had yet to be done at the time of the complaint.
Under the terms of the tenancy, and in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building and keep in repair and proper working order the heating system and the system for providing hot water. This includes basins, sinks, baths and lavatories, but does not include other appliances that make use of these supplies.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its type of repairs and its response times as follows:
1. Emergency (respond within 24 hours). Faults or disrepairs that constitute a safety hazard or which make a property uninhabitable.
2. Urgent (respond within five calendar days). Faults or disrepairs that require prompt attention but which do not constitute an emergency; works to address any significant repair barriers to the normal habitability of the dwelling; or works to address chronic disrepair that might result in damage if left unattended for any significant time.
3. Routine (respond within 21 calendar days). All other incidents, faults or disrepairs that do not fall within the Emergency or Urgent categories; works to address any minor repair barriers to the normal habitability of the dwelling, or works requiring specialist materials, components or subcontractors; or materials or components that cannot be procured off-the-shelf and need to be ordered.
4. 45-Day (respond within 45 calendar days). Works that cannot realistically be delivered within 21 days due to their nature or complexity; works costing more than delegated budgets levels to the contractor; works that are unplanned capital works/elemental replacements and not day-to-day repairs; or significant repairs to boundaries, damp works or roofing which must be recommended by a surveyor and approved by a manager before works can be started.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within 20 working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 25 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair logs state that:
1. It received a report from the resident on 10 October 2020 of issues with the toilet and the shower waste pump. This was marked as completed on 16 October 2020.
2. The resident reported that the shower temperature gauge was not working on 3 December 2020. This was marked as completed on 11 December 2020.
3. On 21 December 2020 the resident reported that the guttering was in poor repair. An inspection was arranged for 16 March 2021, follow-on work was recommended and was confirmed as completed by the contractor on 7 April 2021. An internal landlord email noted that there was a delay in this work starting as due to the Covid-19 pandemic as its contractor was only attending essential repairs during the national lockdown.
4. On 11 February 2021 the resident reported an uncontainable leak from the toilet. The landlord attended the property on 12 February 2021 and follow-on work was marked as completed on 23 February 2021.
On 24 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint into how repairs had been undertaken. He described the elements of the complaint as:
1. He first reported issues with leaks from the guttering on 30 October 2020. An operative inspected the roof and determined that scaffolding would be required. A further inspection was held on the 24 February 2021 which confirmed scaffolding was required and the worked still remained outstanding.
2. He reported issues with his shower on 3 December 2020 and following email correspondence to request an earlier appointment time, a plumber attended on 10 December 2020. The plumber informed him that the shower would need to be replaced. During the appointment to replace the shower on 11 December 2020, it was determined that the issue was with the thermostat and the shower was successfully repaired.
3. He was dissatisfied with the length of time it took the shower to be repaired and that the landlord’s repairs system were not suited to the needs of its disabled residents.
4. The plumber who visited to inspect the leaking toilet said that the tiles would have to be removed as part of the inspection. The resident did not believe the replacement of tiles was a good use of money and noted that the repair to the toilet on 23 February 2020 did not require the removal of tiles.
5. The overall communication from the landlord and its contractors had been poor and that operatives had attended without warning. The resident explained that as a wheelchair user he wanted to know in advance when contractors were attending to allow him to plan his days.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested compensation in recognition of the poor service he had received.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 24 March 2021. It apologised to the resident for the poor service he received, and that notice was not always provided of repair appointments which had caused delays in completing repairs.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its service failure and explained that following an inspection on 16 March 2021, its contactor was determining whether scaffolding would be required or if it could use a scaffold tower to complete repairs and that it would be in contact within 48 hours to arrange an appointment.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 May 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that:
1. It took six months for the guttering work to be completed which involved three separate visits to determine what kind of scaffolding should be used. The scaffolding was then erected at 8am, despite the landlord and contractor already being aware that the resident’s carer did not arrive until 11am and appointments should not be arranged before 11:30am.
2. Due to his medical conditions, he required regular showers throughout the day. When he first reported the problem with the shower on 3 December 2020, he was offered an appointment on 15 December 2020. He attempted to get an earlier appointment, but experienced difficulty in making direct contact with the appropriate staff member. The resident noted that if the issue with the shower was correctly identified as a problem with the thermostat during the first visit rather the second, the shower would have been repaired sooner.
3. The repair to the toilet was also not correctly identified until the second visit, causing delays to completing the work.
4. He did not believe that the landlord’s repairs policy and procedures properly take into consideration the needs and requirements of its disabled residents.
5. The compensation offer by the landlord of £50 was inadequate.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 10 June 2021. The landlord informed him that:
1. During the period of the repairs raised as part of the complaint, it was operating under restrictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, there was a period of time where it was only able to respond to emergency repairs. It explained that it provided updates to its resident on the status of its repairs service on its website and via recorded messages on its repairs telephone line.
2. The timeline for the guttering repair was:
  1. A communal repair for the building was raised on 12 October 2020.
  2. Roofers inspected the building on 16 December 2020 and determined scaffolding would be required. This order was put on hold as the contractor was only attending essential repairs at the time due to Covid-19.
  3. A further inspection occurred on 16 March 2021 where it was recommended a scaffold tower was used to minimise disruption.
  4. The scaffold tower was erected on 6 April 2021.
  5. The work was completed on 7 April 201.
  6. The scaffold tower was dismantled on 14 April 2021.
3. The contractor was aware that the resident would not be available until 11:30am. The contractor had provided it with an exchange of text messages where it informed resident that it would not requires access to his property to erect the scaffold and asked him if it could erect it over the back fence at around 10am, which the resident agreed to. The landlord included a copy of the text messages with the response.
4. The contractor should have been aware of the four notices flagged on its system that highlighted the resident’s needs (see paragraph 3 above). However, due to an IT issue the contractor could only see the first of these notices (mobility issues). This issue had been passed on to its IT department to rectify. The landlord noted that the resident’s customer profile did not emphasise his daily need for the shower and douche spray. This information had now been added.
5. The record of the resident’s call made on 3 December 2020 made no mention of any urgency required due to the resident’s disabilities. Without that information the contractor had treated the repair as routine. If the repair had been correctly flagged as urgent, it would have been attended to within five working days. The repair was completed on 11 December 2020, which constituted a delay of three working days.
6. The shower and toilet repairs both required two visits before the issues were identified. The landlord explained that as both the shower and the toilet are adapted, in both initial visits it was determined that a specialist was required to undertake the inspection. It also explained that although it aims to fix the issue during its first visit, some repairs will require more than one appointment due to their complexity and/or for parts to be ordered and installed.
7. In light of the resident’s disabilities and the daily requirement of a shower and douche, the landlord has requested that the contractor send its specialist operatives to the first visit for any future appointments.
The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that I had not upheld the element of the complaint relating to the guttering repair, but that it had upheld the element of the complaint relating to the shower repair. It apologised for the three working days delay due to the repair being incorrectly categorised and the inconvenience caused to the resident for the time the shower was not working properly.
The landlord also informed the resident that it had reviewed its compensation offer and had increased the amount to £100 in recognition of the delay in completing repairs to the shower.
The landlord then confirmed that the resident had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised him on the steps to take to bring the case to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled repairs to the guttering of the building

The resident has stated his dissatisfaction with the length of time it took for the repairs to be completed and that scaffolding was erected prior to 11:30am before his carer was available.
In its complaint response the landlord explained that the work was delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic and provided evidence of text messages where the resident gave permission for the work to start earlier as the contractor did not require access to his property to erect the scaffolding.
It is clear that this work was not completed within 45 calendar days as per the landlord’s policy for this repair type. However, during this period the landlord’s services were affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord kept its residents updated via its website and telephone line on the status of its services and had advised that delays to non-emergency repairs were likely. This was in line with general industry practice at the time as many landlords were running a reduced repairs service due to the effects of the pandemic and the associated restrictions. Whilst the length of time taken to repair the guttering would have understandably caused frustration and worry to the resident, the landlord would not be expected to compensate for delays that were outside of its control.
The screenshots of text messages provided by the landlord as part of its stage two response have not been disputed by the resident. These show that the contractor was aware not to schedule appointments before 11:30am and that it sought and received permission from the resident to arrange an appointment to erect the scaffold tower earlier than 11:30am after the resident was informed that access to his property was not required to complete the work.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled repairs to the guttering. The delays in completing the work were outside of its control and the contractor sought permission from the resident to start work prior to 11:30am.

How the landlord handled repairs to the shower in the resident’s property

In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been service failure with how it had handled the shower repair. The landlord apologised, explained what steps it had taken internally to improve its procedures and offered £100 compensation.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It looked to put things right by apologising to the resident, updating its system notices to ensure the contractor was aware of the resident’s requirement for a working shower, and awarding compensation.
It looked to learn from its mistakes by arranging for its IT department to investigate why the contractor could only see the first of the four notices on its system relating to the resident’s vulnerabilities and make to any necessary changes. It also advised the contractor that it should send its specialist operatives to the property on the first appointment if the resident reported any future issues with items that have adaptations.
These measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. However, the compensation offer made by the landlord was not in line with its compensation policy.
The compensation took into account the poor communication received by the resident and the delay in completing the repair due to it being miscategorised. However, the compensation did not take into account the distress caused to the resident.
Section 11g of the landlord’s compensation policy relates to distress. This, in part states that:
1. “The amount of compensation awarded will need to take into account all the circumstances including the severity of the distress, the length of time during which it occurred, the number of people affected and the personal circumstances of those affected. For example, the impact on a family with young children or a person with disability should be given specific consideration. A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. In cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1,000 may be justified.”
Therefore, in order to fully resolve this element of the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay further compensation that recognises the distress caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.
In this case, while the delay in completing repairs to the shower caused clear distress to the resident, the delay was of short duration (three working days) and the landlord explained what steps it had taken and what instructions it had given to its contractor to prevent a similar situation occurring.
Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £150 compensation to the resident bringing the total amount of compensation to be paid by the landlord to £250.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled repairs to the guttering of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled repairs to the shower in the resident’s property.

Reasons

Delays in completing work to repair the guttering were a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and national lockdown and therefore outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord’s contractor first sought permission from the resident before arranging an appointment to erect the scaffold tower earlier than 11:30am.
The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication and mis-categorisation of the shower repair. It apologised and explained what steps it had taken to improve it service and prevent a similar occurrence in the future.
The level of compensation offered by the landlord was not in line with its compensation policy as it did not recognise the distress caused to the resident by these service failures.

Orders

That within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident:
1. The £100 it offered in its final response, if it has not done so already.
2. An additional £150 compensation for the distress caused to the resident by the failures identified in this report.
The landlord is to update this Service when payment has been made.