Runnymede Borough Council (202116044)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116044

Runnymede Borough Council

14 May 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns how the landlord handled:
    1. Repairs to the property’s wetroom.
    2. The resident’s reports of damage to fencing.
    3. The resident’s request to transfer to another property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence. the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

How the landlord handled the resident’s request to transfer to another property.

  1. The resident complained to the landlord regarding its decision to withdraw an offer of an alternative property. The resident has stated that the landlord did not properly handle an investigation as part of the transfer application process, which resulted in the property being offered to another tenant. The resident also highlighted his dissatisfaction that the severity of his disabilities were questioned by a landlord staff member as part of the transfer application.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to an application for rehousing made to a local authority. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, the awarding of points or banding priority are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). It is advised that the resident contact the LGSCO if he wishes to take this aspect of the complaint further.
  3. This is in line with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, which states that this Service “will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 September 2021 and requested to raise a complaint. He described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. He lost the chance of being rehoused as the landlord did not properly progress his transfer application.
    2. There was mould in the wetroom. A leak from the wetroom had caused water penetration into a kitchen light fitting, which had been isolated for six months. There was also an intermittent fault with the wetroom’s shower.
    3. A fence panel had fallen down which prevented his children from playing in the garden as it faced a busy road.
  3. A stage one complaint response was sent by the landlord on 22 September 2021. It addressed the elements of the complaint relating to the transfer application and informed the resident that it had arranged for an inspection of the property on 23 September 2021 to examine the outstanding repairs.
  4. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 27 September 2021 on the grounds that the landlord had not addressed all the elements of the complaint he had raised. A stage two complaint response was then sent on 8 October 2021. The landlord:
    1. Provided a timeline of repairs to the wetroom from when the resident first reported the leak on 28 April 2021, up to the inspection held on 23 September 2021.
    2. Accepted that although it had responded appropriately to the initial report from the resident, no follow-on work was then raised to resolve the issue.
    3. Apologised to the resident for the delay, offered £300 compensation and stated that it would arrange for the outstanding work to be completed and determine whether the shower unit required replacement.
  5.  In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident advised that the compensation offered for the delays in completing repairs to the wetroom was not sufficient and the repair to the fencing remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for keeping in good repair internal pipes, baths, sinks, basins, toilets, taps and deck mixer showers if installed by the landlord. Section 5 of the repairs policy relates to fencing and states that “where an individual panel is ‘down’ we will replace if necessary, on a like–for–like basis”
  2. The repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (attend within four hours) and “General” (attend within 20 days). The landlord describes the circumstances where a repair will be considered an emergency as:
    1. Total loss of electric heating or hot water (November to April only)
    2. Total or partial loss of cold-water supply
    3. Total or partial loss of electricity
    4. Leaking pipes or drains
    5. Blocked drain or toilet, or no other toilet that can be flushed within the property
    6. Unsafe electrics
    7. Re-securing or making safe items if they are dangerous or a risk to life, for example windows and external doors
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy says the landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a response at stage one of is process within ten 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 ten working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

How the landlord handled repairs to the property’s wetroom

  1. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not properly arranged follow-on works to complete repairs to the wetroom. The landlord apologised, agreed to complete the outstanding work and offered £300 compensation for its service failures.
  2. 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.
  3. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by apologising to the resident, arranging to complete the outstanding work to the wetroom (its repairs records state the work to the wetroom repairs were completed on 12 November 2021) and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by making changes to how its staff responded to repair reports.
  4. The compensation payment offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £700 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord, where there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
    2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments
  5. In this case, while it responded appropriately in treating the initial report as an emergency repair; there was service failure from the landlord in not arranging follow-on work to complete repairs and in the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to raise a complaint to get the matter addressed and resolved. A payment of £300 was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The resident has stated that the level of redress offered by the landlord was not sufficient. It is important to be aware that the Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive, and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
  7. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damage to fencing

  1. When the resident raised his complaint on 15 September 2021, one of the elements of the complaints was damage to fencing which was preventing the resident’s children from playing in the garden. The landlord did not address the fencing issue in either of its complaint responses.
  2. The landlord’s repair logs show an internal email sent on 8 June 2021 which made reference to outstanding fencing repairs. A reply to this email sent on 9 June 2021 is also in the repair logs. The reply did not address fencing repairs. The landlord’s repair logs and internal correspondence provided to this Service make no other reference to fencing repairs.
  3. Therefore, there has been a failure by the landlord in not addressing this element of the complaint or providing any evidence that it had raised work to inspect the fencing in the property and arrange any necessary repairs.
  4. In order too fully resolve this aspect of the complaint, the landlord should offer compensation to the resident. The landlord should also write to the resident to confirm the status of the fencing repairs. If the repairs remain outstanding, the landlord should raise the necessary work orders to complete the work and consider awarding the resident additional compensation for the further delays in resolving this issue. It should then write to the resident to inform him of its decision.
  5. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on a complainant. As an example for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses”.
  6. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for its failure to address the element of the complaint relating to fencing repairs in either of its complaint responses.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled repairs to the property’s wetroom which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled resident’s reports of damage to fencing. 

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £200 for its failures to address the fencing repairs in its complaint responses.

This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

This compensation award is in addition to the £300 compensation already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process.

  1. Write to the resident to confirm the status of the fencing repairs.
  2. If it has not done so already, raise the necessary work orders to complete any outstanding work to the fencing and then consider whether to offer additional compensation to the resident for the delays in resolving the issue. It should then write to the resident to inform him of its decision.