Westminster City Council (202000899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000899

Westminster City Council

29 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling in respect to:
1. The resident’s reports about the current property condition and repairs.
2. The resident’s request for compensation for items affected by her move and leaks at the property, and for delays and distress and inconvenience.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a flat in a block.
The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring a property is fit for human habitation, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the tenancy conditions. To meet its responsibilities, the landlord operates a reactive repairs service for day to day repairs, and carries out improvement and cyclical works as part of major works projects. For reactive repairs, it carries out emergency and urgent repairs in two to 24 hours, and non-urgent repairs by appointment.
The landlord’s tenant handbook sets out responsibilities in more detail and confirms it is responsible for all equipment installed for delivering utility services. The handbook encourages tenants to have their own contents insurance, says it does not provide contents cover for damage to possessions in the property, regardless of cause, and that tenants may not always be able to claim on its insurance as damage is not always caused by negligence.
The landlord, as a local authority, has a statutory duty to assess and enforce health and safety in privately rented housing using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), a risk‑based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. A local authority cannot take statutory enforcement action against itself for its own housing, however it is expected to use the HHSRS to assess its housing and to ensure this meets the Decent Homes Standard. The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, which advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category one under the HHSRS; be in reasonable state of repair; have reasonably modern facilities; and provide reasonable thermal comfort. Whether a property may be in unreasonable repair depends on whether building components are old and need replacement or major repair; while whether facilities may not be modern depends on whether a property lacks more than three relevant facilities such as reasonably modern bathrooms.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure and aims to respond at each stage within ten working days. Its complaint handling guidance advises that where legal action has been instigated, it may be appropriate to suspend a complaint until a court case or litigation has concluded. The guidance notes that a complainant is written to and advised of this after the landlord’s legal services have confirmed this approach.

Summary of events

This investigation understands that in March 2017, the resident made a claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Disrepair Cases (England) about the condition of her previous property. Following this, an independent survey report in August 2017 concluded that the previous property was ‘in a reasonable state of repair’ but recommended works in relation to water pressure; heating; soundproofing; kitchen layout; extractor fans; and a soil stack. This investigation understands that an Occupational Therapist assessment of the previous property also recommended a new kitchen. This investigation then understands that as works required the resident to be decanted, it was decided to award additional priority points to enable her to move to another property. Information provided advises that the resident viewed her current property in August 2017 and moved into it in May 2018 after completion of some void works.
This investigation understands that after the resident moved into her current property she raised a number of issues, which the landlord inspected on at least four occasions and completed snagging it considered necessary in response to these between around June and December 2018. For other issues, the landlord considered no works to be required, or progressed them until it reached a final position, detailed in repairs records and other information provided to this investigation.
For reported stains on kitchen lino, information provided suggests this was caused in the course of a kitchen sink leak reported on 13 June 2018. The landlord’s notes advise that the resident said the leak was caused by the washing machine waste pipe; that the resident said a washer was replaced by an operative; and the landlord initially took no further action after inspecting the state of the lino. Following the leak in June 2018, information provided advises that a repair was raised on 27 November 2018 to trace and remedy a leak under the kitchen sink, for which it was noted that no leak was found after attendance the same day. The lino was subsequently replaced in 2019 at the same time as carpet that was damaged by contractors, as noted at Paragraph 15 of this report.
For reported marks to walls caused when moving the resident’s furnishings in, information provided advises that after issues with redecoration such as wrong paint being used, it was noted that compensation should be offered instead.
For a request for a new bathroom and kitchen, an Occupational Therapist assessment was carried out on 20 August 2018. The resident was informed that recommendations for the previous property were not relevant to the new one. It was noted that she raised issues with a tap; kitchen storage and one cupboard housing a meter; flooring; a smoke detector; and location of cooker and oven, which were checked and considered satisfactory. The report noted that water did not drain from the sink and that the landlord would take this forward. The report noted there were markings to the bath and toilet that a clean could address. The report noted that the toilet could be higher, and a raised seat was offered but declined. The report noted the resident wanted a new kitchen and bathroom but concluded that no further action was required in respect to these.
For the sink-draining issue noted at the 20 August 2018 Occupational Therapist assessment, the landlord raised a repair on 21 August 2018 to “Clear stack affecting blocked/backsurging kitchen sink and washing machine.” On 24 August 2018, it was noted that the sink was cleared through to the stack and the washing machine was tested and found to drain fine.
For a wine rack acknowledged to be of poor workmanship and which did not fit larger size bottles, it was concluded that compensation should be offered instead of re-doing the wine rack (this followed the Occupational Therapist assessment which found a new kitchen was not required).
For pink staining to items such as the bathroom basin and toilet, it was noted that this could be resolved by cleaning and keeping surfaces dry. It was noted that the resident declined an initial offer to replace affected items as she intended to discuss a bathroom replacement at the Occupational Therapist assessment, which found a new bathroom was not required. This investigation understands that the resident later raised concern that the staining indicated water quality issues, and in October 2018 the landlord arranged for its contractor to test the water. The results of this in November 2018 found the quality to be fine, but it was suggested to change taps and a WC cistern that had mould on it, and the landlord’s records advise that taps, a basin and a toilet were changed in May 2019 after attempts to carry out the work sooner.
For some issues with the resident’s possessions and furnishings, that included some furniture being too big to fit into the new property, sofa cushions getting lost in the move, and contractors causing carpet stains, between 2018 and 2019 the landlord supplied a new wardrobe; supplied a new dining set; supplied a new sofa; attempted to clean the carpet; and later replaced the carpet along with flooring affected by leaks, at a total cost of over £4,000.
In April and May 2019, the resident raised issues connected to her current property, which she referred to as a formal complaint but also said had led her to ‘resurrect’ legal assistance. She stated dissatisfaction with taps and other items affected by red stains and gunge; the power of the toilet flush; a nine month delay moving into her property; the length of time her furniture was in storage; the outcome to the Occupational Therapist assessment; the lack of a new kitchen and bathroom in the current property; the lack of a taller kitchen spout to allow filling of bottles; the removal of a sink and drainer; a damaged bath panel; and an oven that this investigation understands was found to have been dented at the rear when being fitted, which reimbursement was requested for. The resident said that her current home was supposed to rectify the issues at her previous property, but complained that the current issues were only being remedied in a ‘superficial’ way and the causes were not being addressed.
In May 2019, the landlord detailed to the resident that a recent inspection had confirmed many repairs were correct, and that outstanding works were for a tap and WC; vinyl flooring installation in the kitchen and bathroom; recarpeting in the hallway and lounge; and delivery of purchased furniture. It said that works would be supervised to ensure quality standards were met. It said a WC would be would be replaced like for like or a close approximation to the new one, since stock changed over time. It also said issues with noise and pressure would be addressed in the WC works, and it detailed how works for the taps and the vinyl flooring would be approached. It said that on completion of the works, a further water test would be done by Thames Water, which later found the water to be of good quality when done in June 2019. In July 2019, an assessment by the local authority’s Environmental Health department against the Housing Health and Safety Rating System found the property to be in a good condition.
In November 2019, information provided advises that the landlord drafted a complaint response which was forgotten to be sent, meaning the resident did not see its replies to issues she had raised. The draft response detailed the landlord’s actions and position in respect to issues with the bathroom, kitchen, lounge, bedroom and hallway. It confirmed that the landlord was satisfied with a number of reported issues. It detailed that it had replaced a dining set that had been too large to fit into the property and replaced a sofa suite for which cushions had been lost. It noted that some personal items were not delivered during the move, and some crockery was ruined due to a kitchen sink leak, and said that a letter would be shortly sent that outlined an offer for compensation and damages.
The same month, and in December 2019, the resident and her solicitor detailed to the landlord that she wanted compensation for ongoing disrepair, delays and inconvenience, as well as for damaged or missing items that occurred during the move to the current property or when the property was flooded:
1. Damaged oven – an unspecified amount. This investigation understands that the oven was installed and the damage came to light during an electrician inspection after one of the floods.
2. Kitchen rotunda sink and drainer – £385. This investigation understands that the resident bought this for the current property but it was removed.
3. Toaster – £67. This investigation understands that this was left in a removal van for a period and got damaged during the move.
4. Two ruined kettles – £145. This investigation understands that one got damaged during a flood and another got damaged by water scaling issues. The resident subsequently informs this investigation that she has experienced issues with a third kettle.
5. Dinner service – £60. This investigation understands that this was under the sink and got affected by a flood.
6. Ruined saucepans and a missing frying pan – £155. This investigation understands that this was under the sink and got affected by a flood.
7. Microwave – £349.
8. Unusable spotlight fittings – £75. This investigation understands that the resident bought this for the current property but it was removed.
9. Sink insert to prevent blockages – to an unspecified amount. This investigation understands that the resident bought this for the current property but it was removed.
10. Washing machine damaged by water issue – to an unspecified amount.
11. Wicker basket – £78. This investigation understands that this got affected by a flood and was stained by gunge.
12. Ruined storage cupboard with drawers – £350. This investigation understands that this got warp damage from a flood.
On 10 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord about a lack of contact, and stated dissatisfaction with it and its contractor’s past and present handling of matters, which included issues and damage during the current property void works; the length of time it took to move into the current property; the water stain issue; and the outcome to the July 2019 Environmental Health visit, which had found the property to be in a good condition.
On 12 March 2020, the landlord made a compensation offer which it said was a final settlement of the loss and inconvenience the resident had experienced. This totalled £3,355 and comprised:
1. Oven damaged by contractors – £1,090.
2. Re-decoration after contractors used wrong paint – £1,500.
3. Spotlights – £75.
4. Kitchen rotunda sink and drainer – £385.
5. Ruined pans and a frying pan – £155.
6. Sink insert – £10.
7. Toaster – £67.
8. Kettle – £72.50.
The landlord said that it had agreed to provide a tall lounge cabinet, as some furniture could not be brought into the property. It said it did not agree to compensate some items that there would not have been enough space for under the sink to incur water damage. It said it would not compensate for crockery that could be washed clean, or a washing machine for which instructions not to use it were ignored and resulted in a flood. The following day, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the offer and said she was unhappy at being blamed for the flood; the offer was not complete; and she wanted to raise a complaint.
In May 2020, the resident spoke to the landlord’s solicitor by telephone and detailed issues in emails on 11 and 22 May 2020, which in summary were that:
1. The issues at her previous and current property had been dealt with in a shambolic way, and she had not had full use of her homes.
2. The previous property had been unfit to live in and poor living conditions had impacted her health and possessions. The landlord had also taken a long time to survey the property, increase her priority, carry out void works and move her to the current property.
3. The current property had required further repairs that were of poor standard, been poorly handled, taken a long time, and not been resolved to her satisfaction. The full extent of outstanding issues was not acknowledged, and there were concerns with the layout; bends in pipework; plumbing; electrics; and recent damage to an external wall caused by scaffold. There were concerns with the bathroom and kitchen and new ones had not been installed after assessments at the previous property had identified the need for this. The cause of water staining issues had not been addressed, which was suggested was due to poor works or old plumbing that was still in situ. The floods that had occurred had impacted the resident.
4. There had been no response after the resident had indicated the compensation finally offered was incomplete, and she was unhappy at being blamed for the flood and with the refusal to reimburse items such as a dinner service and microwave. She queried where a tall cabinet referred to in the compensation offer was. She raised concern about the landlord’s delay in putting things right and said the issues had caused financial loss, disruption, distress and inconvenience over a long period. She requested an apology and improved compensation offer that included damages, personal injury and a discretionary goodwill offer.
On 4 June 2020, the landlord’s solicitors emailed the resident.
1. They noted her emails and a call they had with her on 19 May 2020, and said they understood she wished to claim for delays carrying out repairs at her current and previous property; claim for compensation for damage caused by a washing machine overflow; and claim for damage to a microwave, lino, carpets, cupboards and dining table. They said that they awaited instructions from the landlord about the compensation to offer.
2. They stated that a number of issues were not disrepair, such as:
  1. bathroom and kitchen taps said to be worse than the previous property;
  2. issues with a toilet, such as too many bended pipes and the sitting position causing numbness to knees;
  3. bathroom plumbing being too messy and old, and low pressure when showering;
  4. the bath being too narrow and slippery and there being tile stains.
3. They said that they would take instructions from the landlord about whether the resident could be referred for an Occupational Therapist assessment for issues with the toilet, bath, and shower pressure.
4. They said that it was the landlord’s position, after numerous checks, that there was nothing wrong with the water in the bathroom. They said that the resident alleged gunk came out of the bathroom taps, but the evidence provided showed stains that usually occurred when a tap trickled into a sink without being washed off. It suggested she get an independent plumber to write a report about what was alleged to be wrong with the water.
5. They said they were unsure what the point was in respect of scaffolding, but they recalled the resident had said this was no longer a problem and had been dealt with.
6. They acknowledged the resident’s concern that she was being blamed for flooding, and said that they would chase a revised damages figure and get back to her with an offer when this was received.
The landlord’s solicitors emailed the resident again on 8 June 2020 after contact from her about poor standard of works. They asked her to consider the existing offer of damages and provide a list of current disrepair. They detailed positions and actions in respect to issues she had complained about:
1. A new WC pan and cistern had addressed a loud noise when flushing, and current noise was within acceptable parameters.
2. The main water supply had been tested in relation to WC and bath stains, and this showed they could only be caused by hardness in the water.
3. The bathroom had been fitted with an extractor fan to address mould, and the resident was provided advice about this and wiping down the bath after use.
4. A damaged bath panel was replaced and had no signs of damage at last inspection.
5. Kitchen units were repaired and considered satisfactory after being affected by backsurge and a leak.
6. Kitchen taps stated not to be fit for purpose were replaced and considered suitable during an inspection by Environmental Health, while a chipped sink was also considered to be fit for purpose.
7. New kitchen flooring had been fitted to address leakage stains.
8. The kitchen had been assessed by surveyors, the voids team, the Occupational Therapy team and the Environmental team, and the layout and cupboard space were assessed to be functional and meet requirements, including health and safety requirements in regard to location of a smoke alarm. It was noted that advice had been provided about overfilling shelves and causing them to bow. Kitchen cupboard doors were also considered to be operational and satisfactory at an inspection, and the repairs department should be contacted if these now needed any easing and adjusting.
9. Full compensation had been agreed for damage to the external casing of an oven which had been caused when it was fitted.
10. New carpet had been fitted to address stains caused by water damage and grease on contractors’ boots, and was satisfactory at an inspection.
11. Compensation had been offered as a gesture of goodwill in respect to carrying out decorations.
12. A boxed in stack pipe in a hallway closet was considered to be an acceptable arrangement, and there was considered to be no need to relocate waste water pipes from current locations.
The same month, the landlord’s solicitor attempted to clarify whether the resident wanted to pursue matters as a disrepair claim or complaint, explaining that pursuing both at the same time would lead to timewasting, duplication and likely confusion. The resident responded that she did not want to close the claim or for the landlord’s solicitor to withdraw their assistance, and said she was simply trying to progress the complaint and obtain a response to emails in May 2020.
In July 2020, after this Service asked the landlord to respond to the complaint by 13 July 2020, the landlord referred to recent correspondence between the resident and its legal team, and said that as she had an active legal disrepair case, it would not investigate the matter in its internal complaints procedure. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 28 July and 28 August 2020 about lack of reply to her request for a response to the May 2020 emails.
In September 2020, the landlord responded that it understood the resident was dissatisfied with the March 2020 compensation offer, and said it would increase its offer to £3,800 in full and final settlement of the disrepair claim. The resident responded that there were some unresolved issues, such as an agreed dining item (which this investigation understands refers to the tall cabinet); lack of resolution to the water staining problem; and lack of reply to her May 2020 emails which had summarised her complaint. The landlord requested some clarification about issues, but advised it had explained that a water issue resulted from hard water. It said if it was believed the water was contaminated, the resident would need to get it tested and provide the result. The resident responded by restating issues with water staining and taps being affected by corrosion. The following month, the resident obtained a letter from her GP which detailed the concerns and said her worry about impact on her health had delayed operations when she was in her previous property.
In December 2020, this Service clarified to the landlord that it was expected to address issues that form part of a Pre-Action Protocol Disrepair claim, and on 31 December 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response:
1. It noted that it had previously said it would not investigate the complaint as the issues were being addressed by the legal disrepair team, and that this Service requested for the resident’s concerns to be investigated under the complaints process. It acknowledged and apologised for confusion and the delay in response to the complaint.
2. It noted the resident complained about the condition at the start of the tenancy. It detailed that the property had new installations such as new kitchen and additional items were installed at her request, and said that the property condition at the start was excellent and above its normal void standard, without any disrepair issues.
3. It noted the resident complained about the time taken to complete outstanding repairs. It noted that the tenancy commenced in May 2018 and it acknowledged that there were delays due to poor supervision of works. It advised that as recognition of the failings a compensatory amount was included as part of its settlement offer which the resident was yet to accept.
4. It noted the resident complained about contractor conduct and damage to possessions while moving. It acknowledged and apologised that there were issues that caused distress and inconvenience, and detailed actions it had taken and compensation it had offered in relation to a broken dining table; undelivered personal items; ruined carpets; poor painting; and cooking units such as the oven. For other items including ruined crockery it said special damages had been agreed and would be proposed by its solicitors.
5. It noted the resident complained about the kitchen layout which had been assessed by the landlord and the local authority Environmental Health and Occupational Therapy teams. It said the layout was functional and met current health and safety regulations, and that regrettably it would not change it.
6. It noted the resident complained about damage to a washing machine. It detailed actions that were taken in relation to a leak in 2018, where the washing machine was left in good working order and there were no issues.
7. It noted the resident complained about matters in relation to two floods, and acknowledged she was distressed by back surges to a kitchen sink. It said that in response to water quality concerns, its contractor had analysed the water and changed taps, and the waterboard had undertaken a water test which found there to be no issues. It reassured her that dirty water which back-surged into the kitchen was from a blocked kitchen waste pipe, not from a mains water supply. It noted that floor stains were resolved when new flooring was fitted, noted to be satisfactory when inspected.
8. It noted the resident complained about the level of communication and it apologised that she felt this was poor. It said that throughout the disrepair claim it was in contact with the resident and her solicitor, but more recently she had stopped communicating, although there had been attempts to correspond with her.
9. It acknowledged and apologised that its failure to investigate the complaint in June 2020, when referred by the Ombudsman, would have caused distress and inconvenience. It awarded £100 compensation and detailed how to escalate the complaint by post or email.
This investigation understands that the resident attempted to escalate the complaint through different means than detailed in the response. In March 2021, following contact from this Service, the resident then restated to the landlord that the issues she was dissatisfied with were issues in her May 2020 emails. She also said her dissatisfaction related to the quality of items that had been replaced in the property; components such as the plumbing and heating being the ones originally fitted in the property; shelves and units being old and warped by age; a bathroom window being draughty; the amount of bends in the pipework; and doctors letters being ignored.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response:
1. It detailed that in response to a previous disrepair claim and the resident’s objections about the former property, it offered a new refurbished property which it hoped would address the issues raised. It said that following reports from surveyors and experts since 2019 it did not consider the current property to be in disrepair.
2. It noted the resident complained about outstanding repairs; that repairs had been superficially dealt with; that replaced items were worse quality than the originals; and that plumbing, the boiler, the heating, meters, kitchen and bathroom were not new.
3. It noted the resident said kitchen shelves were old and warped, and said it had explained when the property was vacant that the kitchen had been installed twelve months prior. It said that on inspection the shelves had been filled over capacity and it had explained that bowing was due to this. It detailed that it had provided additional storage space.
4. It detailed that flooring in the kitchen and bathroom were renewed and new carpet was installed.
5. It detailed that renewal works were carried out to the bathroom and the only item that was not new was the bath, which was considered fit for purpose. It noted concerns about steaming up and draughts were raised which it had checked at the time.
6. It noted the resident raised concern about pipework, including bends in the pipework from a WC pan to a soil stack. It said pipework, boiler, meters and radiators were tested and were considered to be fit for purpose, and to not require renewal.
7. It said that it had acknowledged that during the disrepair case, it took longer to get the new property ready as some repairs were done to a poor standard, and it recalled contractors to correct mistakes and awarded compensation. It said it had acknowledged failings, apologised for errors and inconvenience, taken steps to rectify failings and offered compensation where it had been unable to rectify the fault. It advised that it had therefore addressed the resident’s concerns about quality and was confident lessons had been learned.
8. It advised that concerns the resident had about stains due to chemicals in the water had been addressed by the Environmental Health team, and identified to be removable using cleaning products. It advised that the waterboard had tested the water and found it to be safe to drink, and it addressed concerns that the waterboard only tested the kitchen tap, saying that the supply to this also fed the bathroom so no additional testing was required.
9. It concluded that it had visited the resident’s home, checked all the concerns she had raised, explained resolutions and offered compensation which remained on offer.
The resident has detailed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response in contact with the Ombudsman. She detailed matters such as issues and delays experienced in respect to her move and repairs, and she disputed elements of the landlord’s responses, such as the kitchen in her current property being installed a year before she moved in. She referred to videos and photographs that she has supplied to show issues at the property. She said a Thames Water inspector had raised some issues which the landlord had not responded to. She said the compensation was mainly for lost and damaged items and did not cover aspects like the cooker or the painting of her flat, which she has said she has done three times. She said the landlord had changed her washing machine previously and also provided her with a fridge. She said she wanted the landlord to provide an industrial type dishwasher and a commercial filter for the water issue, and to learn lessons and make service improvements from her case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This investigation understands that the resident is dissatisfied with issues and delays she experienced with her previous home and moving into her current property, which she has indicated spans a period of five to seven years.
When assessing a complaint, this Service considers the timeframe of a complaint to be of note, because the Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by its Scheme. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.” The landlord’s complaints policy has a similar approach in that it only considers complaints made within a reasonable period.
Paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme also advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.”
This investigation does not consider it reasonable to treat the resident’s more recent complaint about her current property as a continuation of a housing claim she made in March 2017 for her previous property, under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Disrepair Claims (England); and does not consider it reasonable to investigate all the issues in respect to the previous property and the move. This is because the longer time goes on, the more the landlord and Ombudsman’s ability to conduct an effective investigation is impacted. The resident had the option to take matters further in a more timely manner if dissatisfied with outcomes provided, or not provided, by the landlord for the previous property – either through progressing an earlier complaint or progressing her legal claim. This investigation therefore focuses on the complaint in respect to the current property, from around April 2019 when the evidence shows the resident said she wanted to make a complaint, to March 2021 when the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
This investigation is also unable to determine issues which have not been brought to the landlord as a complaint and exhausted its procedure. The resident has detailed a number of issues to this Service for which this appears applicable, even though she feels the causes of these result from issues at the
that include an issue with electrics, where the kettle turns on even when the electrics are off; radiators half-heating up; an issue with a shed that she rents; worktop not being even; windows not being cleaned; and utility bill increases. Outside of the complaints procedure, the landlord has day to day services which the resident has the option to report any current issues to, in order for it to consider any appropriate action.
This investigation also notes that the resident has been previously informed that concerns about inaccurate information on file would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office, and separate determinations by the Housing Ombudsman Service have considered complaints about gas inspections and anti-social behaviour. This investigation therefore does not consider these matters.

The landlord’s handling in respect to the current property condition and repairs.

This Service understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address issues with the property which continue to have an impact today; and we recognise the concerns she reports have affected and caused distress to her. In relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a definitive determination on matters such as the impact on health, or if a property is of an insufficient standard, uninhabitable, or adequately modernised – as these are not within our role, expertise or jurisdiction. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions – which this assessment goes on to do.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs complaints confirms that new lettings must be free from risks and of decent standard and that landlords should carry out inspections to determine whether properties meet lettable standards. The evidence seen by this investigation demonstrates that the landlord carried out a number of inspections and concluded the letting condition was satisfactory. The issues that arose appear to relate to snagging issues with completed works and accidental damages, rather than a specific failure to meet the landlord’s minimum standards for letting. In the Ombudsman’s experience, it is not unusual for some repair and/or snagging issues to not become apparent until after a home becomes occupied, however robust void checks are.
In regards to issues that arose, the landlord is obligated to consider any repairs reports and take steps to resolve any repairs it is responsible for, under its policies and responsibilities in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The evidence demonstrates that following reports from the resident, the landlord has considered many issues and carried out multiple inspections; taken action for issues it considered appropriate, going on to complete multiple repairs it identified to be necessary; and set out its position on others.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s responses to concerns about the property condition were reasonable, and while the resident has provided information such as photographic evidence to show how she considers many elements of her home and workmanship to be unsatisfactory, this does not specifically show that conclusions the landlord reached are wrong. The development of issues at the property also do not necessarily show that the landlord’s previous conclusions or actions were wrong.
The landlord’s position in respect to the condition of the property appears reasonable. The property condition has clearly been considered in multiple inspections by the landlord and the local authority Environmental Health and Occupational Therapist departments, and has been found to be satisfactory. While this investigation notes that the resident raises many concerns with issues such as location of utilities media such as fuse boxes, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of staff, and the evidence shows that multiple staff have taken similar views; while there is no evidence of an equivalent professional nature which supports the resident’s own opinion on matters.
The landlord’s position in respect to not installing new components such as a bathroom and kitchen appears reasonable. The Decent Homes Standard, which sets out the standards considered acceptable for social housing, advises that acceptable bathrooms and kitchens may be those which are 30 and 20 years old or less, respectively. This investigation understands that the resident feels her current property should have a new kitchen, as this was recommended in the Occupational Therapist assessment for her previous property; she disputes a new kitchen was installed a year before she moved into the current property; and she is unhappy with aspects such as a gas meter being located in one of the kitchen cupboards.
The bathroom and kitchen have been considered in multiple inspections by the landlord and the local authority Environmental Health and Occupational Therapist departments and have, whatever their age, been considered to be adequate and of a satisfactory standard. The landlord and the Occupational Therapist department have also had opportunity to consider whether the recommendation for a new kitchen should transfer from the previous property to the new one, and have had the opportunity to consider whether the current kitchen meets the resident’s needs. As the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of staff, the conclusions that have been made have been reached in an appropriate way.
The landlord’s position in respect to the water staining issue also appears reasonable. The landlord’s responses have clearly considered the resident’s concerns about how items such as taps are affected by the issue, and tests by contractors and Thames Water have found the water quality to be satisfactory. This demonstrates that the landlord has considered the issue in an evidence-led way and been informed by appropriate expertise. The conclusion that the stains and issues the resident reports are associated with hard water appear reasonable, and from this investigation’s own review such issues are common in hard water areas and do not appear to present a health issue.
The landlord’s position in respect to components such as pipework and electrics not requiring renewal appears reasonable. The Decent Homes Standard, which sets out the standards considered acceptable for social housing, advises that acceptable lifetimes for many components in a property may extend to multiple decades. While the landlord’s obligations includes to carry out repair or replacement of old building components, this is generally where this is considered to be required based on assessments of the condition, and there is no specific requirement for a property to have all its components renewed when a tenant moves in. Such renewal work is typically done when a block is included in a landlord’s planned major/cyclical works programme, a type of longer term project that most landlords will have for their housing stock to upgrade more major components such as roofs and windows when they have reached the end of their functional life. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point such modernisations and improvements are required, and this Service considers that the landlord, its staff and contractors are best qualified to determine this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to concerns that the property lacks modernisation appears reasonable, as it has reviewed them and set out its current position. If the resident has further concern about lack of modernisation of the property, she has the option to ask the landlord when it estimates it will next carry out any modernisations, improvements, or cyclical works to the block.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, overall the landlord’s handling in respect to the current property condition and repairs was appropriate. It carried out inspections of the property and identified and carried out repairs it considered necessary. It has reviewed and responded to the resident’s concerns. The information provided demonstrates the landlord reached informed decisions about issues based on first hand inspection that would have allowed it to review the issues directly against its obligations. This demonstrates the landlord reached conclusions in appropriate ways and in accordance with what the Ombudsman would expect to see.

The landlord’s handling of compensation for items affected by the resident’s move, leaks at the property, and for delays and distress and inconvenience.

As previously explained, the Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme, and Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”
This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for personal injury or damage to the resident’s possessions, but it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. While the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law and policies, if this is disputed, only a court or tribunal can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
The information provided advises that the landlord has spent over £4,000 on furnishings after the resident moved into the property, and offered a further £3,800 compensation. The resident’s account also advises that it replaced her washing machine at one point and provided her with a fridge as she did not have one.
The landlord appears to have been very positive and customer focused in respect to providing remedies to the resident, having purchased and replaced items and agreed to reimburse others. This includes replacement of items that could not be fitted into the property, which this investigation can see no evidence it was necessarily obligated to do; an amount for cosmetic damage to an oven, where there is no evidence the oven functionality was affected; a goodwill amount for decorations; and various amounts for items damaged by the move and flood. The landlord’s compensation offer appears reasonable as it appears to have addressed and accepted liability for a majority of items the resident has claimed for, and disputed liability for a limited number of items. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord has generally considered the resident’s compensation claim, which is in accordance with what the Ombudsman expects to see.
However, the resident has stated that the compensation offer was incomplete, and there are elements of the landlord’s handling of its compensation offer which are not entirely satisfactory. It could have given greater consideration to the resident’s concern that the offer was incomplete and addressed areas where the compensation offer is unclear.
The compensation offer does not include compensation for a wine rack, which the landlord’s internal records in 2018 noted it would compensate due to poor standard of work. The reason for lack of inclusion of this in the landlord’s offer is unclear.
The landlord did not clarify its position on a wicker basket and a ruined storage cupboard that the resident submitted for reimbursement with other items. The landlord has also not clarified further details the resident requested about a tall unit referred to in the March 2020 compensation offer. She explained that she had not received this, asked for information about it and queried if it could be included in the compensation offer. This Service would not decide based on the evidence available whether the resident should be compensated for these, but would expect the landlord to set out its position on them.
The landlord indicated in its stage one response that a compensatory amount was included which recognised failings in respect to the time taken to complete outstanding repairs, however this is not quantified in the compensation offer.
The landlord said in its December 2020 stage one response that special damages had been agreed and would be proposed by its solicitors for other items, however this investigation has seen no evidence of a compensation offer since September 2020. The increase of the offer in September 2020, from £3,355 to £3,800, also did not explain what this increase was for and what it covered.
It is possible that in its compensation offer, the landlord has exercised discretion and goodwill for a number of items, in order to be customer focused; recognise stated failings for delays in completion of outstanding repairs; and recognise any distress and inconvenience caused the resident. However, the landlord does not appear to have been sufficiently clear about this or how certain items, delays, and distress and inconvenience are reflected and quantified in the offer. This appears, understandably, to have led to ongoing doubt on the part of the resident about whether the offer goes beyond reimbursement for possessions. This investigation therefore finds a failing for this aspect and makes orders to the landlord in respect to this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

This investigation understands that in March 2017, the resident issued a housing claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (England), then around April/May 2019 the resident stated she had ‘resurrected’ legal assistance; but court proceedings have not been started. Paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.” This can mean that this Service may not investigate complaints which involve legal disrepair claims. The Ombudsman’s view is that a matter does not become ‘legal’ until details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, have been filed at court. This approach is further explained in a recent guidance note.
This investigation understands the complexity of the case and the challenges the landlord may have had. This includes unclear and lengthy correspondence from the resident at times, based on which it is understandable the landlord may have missed something on occasion. It does not appear reasonable however that the landlord treated complaints from the resident in 2019 and 2020 as a continuation of the previous legal disrepair case, or as a new legal disrepair case, without evidence of a recent formal legal claim being issued. The courts encourage parties to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution when the Pre-Action Protocol is being pursued, which a landlord’s complaints procedure and the Housing Ombudsman Service are seen as part of. The landlord following its formal complaints procedure can be beneficial to disputes between parties as this can offer a structure for how matters are handled; a channel for effective communication; and a means of trying to bring closure to a case in the form of a comprehensive complaint response that addresses a resident’s concerns and sets out a position.
There should have therefore been greater consideration about how to handle the matter, around April 2019, when the resident referred to making a complaint and resurrecting legal action, and around June 2020 when the landlord asked the resident how she wanted to progress matters. There should have been consideration of whether a formal legal claim had been received, and consideration of the procedure most suited to address issues the resident also raised, such as concerns about service handling. These type of concerns may not be best served by a legal procedure, as this primarily aims to reach mainly financial settlements for issues, which is something the landlord could have explained to the resident. The apparent lack of a clear approach for how all of the resident’s concerns were being handled meant there were lengthy delays in the resident receiving responses to enquiries and the complaint.
The landlord took action in May 2019 to update the resident and set out how it was handling matters, and the evidence shows it fulfilled commitments it made. This demonstrates that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and was taking steps in response to the substantive issues she raised. The evidence then suggests that some steps were being taken to treat the matter as a complaint, however a draft complaint response in November 2019 to many issues raised by the resident was never sent, and this investigation sees no evidence the written responses were provided as part of legal correspondence. The evidence then goes on to show that the landlord set out its position on many issues in June 2020, however a stage one response to the complaint was not provided until December 2020, thirteen months after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with matters around April 2019; it took four months after discussions about compensation for the landlord to make a compensation offer; and the landlord did not address the resident’s May 2020 emails until March 2021, ten months later, despite her referring to these on multiple occasions.
While this investigation understands the challenges in the case and that the resident’s dissatisfaction may not have been easy to understand at times, the evidence shows there were missed opportunities for the landlord to progress the complaint earlier, and that overall, its complaint handling was inappropriate. It failed to send out a response in November 2019, which would have formally addressed many elements of the resident’s complaint about her property. It was not reasonable to treat concerns about the current property as a continuation of a previous disrepair claim about the previous property, or as a new claim, without a formal legal claim being issued about the current property. This led to a lengthy and protracted progress of the complaint over the course of twenty three months. The delays in addressing specific aspects that the resident raised on multiple occasions will have led to her feeling issues were being ignored for a long period of time, which is inappropriate. This is not fully acknowledged in the landlord’s £100 compensation for complaint handling, which only recognised delay in response to the complaint since June 2020 when referred by this Service. This investigation therefore finds a failing for this aspect and makes orders to the landlord in respect to this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling in respect to the resident’s reports about the current property condition and repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of compensation for items affected by the resident’s move, leaks at the property, and for delays and distress and inconvenience.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord carried out inspections of the property and identified and carried out repairs it considered necessary. It has reviewed and responded to the resident’s concerns and reached decisions in a reasonable way, as these are based on the professional opinion of staff on whose opinion it is entitled to rely.
While the landlord has made a substantial compensation offer which demonstrates it has generally sought to consider the resident’s claims, it has not made sufficiently clear how delays and distress and inconvenience are reflected and quantified in the offer. This appears, understandably, to have led to ongoing doubt on the part of the resident about how the offer goes beyond reimbursement for possessions and addresses aspects the landlord has said it does.
The landlord was not reasonable to treat concerns about the current property as a continuation of a previous disrepair claim about the previous property, or as a new claim, without evidence of a formal legal claim being issued about the current property. The landlord failed to send out a draft complaint response in November 2019. The £100 compensation offered for complaint handling acknowledged a delay between June and December 2020, but does not fully acknowledge inappropriate progress of the complaint over the course of twenty three months.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay £350 in total to the resident:
1. £100 for its handling of the compensation claim.
2. £250 for its complaint handling (this is to be reduced to £150, if the £100 originally offered for complaints handling was paid).
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above within four weeks of the decision.
The landlord to review its complaints handling and review how it will handle legal cases going forward. As part of this it should review the Ombudsman’s recent Housing Conditions Claims guidance. The landlord should, within four weeks of the decision, provide this Service with the outcomes to discussions on what its approach will be going forward.
The landlord to review its compensation offer in light of issues identified in Paragraphs 49 to 58 of this report; confirm to the resident how this addresses delays and distress and inconvenience; and clarify to the resident the status of the tall unit referred to in the March 2020 compensation offer and the steps that would be involved in providing this to her. The landlord should, within four weeks of the decision, provide this Service with a copy of correspondence sent to the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord to liaise with the resident to review any Thames Water report that she says raised issues which it has not addressed, and to consider appropriate action.
The landlord to liaise with the resident concerning new, current issues including power failures, plugs not working and lack of hot water, to ensure these are being progressed appropriately.