Brent Council (202000712)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000712

Brent Council

25 November 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 is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Repairs within the resident’s property and within her block prior to July 2017.
2. Concerns raised about renovation works to the resident’s block of flats between 2003 and 2005.
3. The resident’s concerns that there was no caretaker for the building, and that the windows to the block had not been cleaned externally for over 25 years.
4. The resident’s concerns that other tenants had died within their properties, and their bodies had been left to deteriorate.
5. A leak affecting the property.
6. The resident’s concerns about antisocial behaviour within her block.
7. Repairs within the resident’s property and her block from July 2017 onwards.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Jurisdiction

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, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, complaints 1a–e are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
It is acknowledged that the resident has concerns about matters including communal cleaning and internal repairs – including the wiring within the property – preceding 2017 and dating back to 1975. It is also acknowledged that recent events have compounded the resident’s concerns.
In response to the resident’s complaint of 31 July 2018, the landlord explained that it would only investigate matters that had transpired in the 12 months leading up to the complaint. It noted that some of the concerns raised by the resident were historic, and declined to investigate these matters with reference to the Scheme.
The Ombudsman expects residents to bring complaints to a landlord’s attention within a “reasonable period”. Once the landlord has had the opportunity to consider the complaint, it can then be escalated to the Ombudsman, again within a reasonable period. As matters become historic, they can become more difficult to investigate for several reasons including a lack of contemporaneous evidence and diminished recollection of events. If a complaint is raised while a matter is ‘live’, not only can a landlord carry out a more thorough investigation, but it can also take appropriate and timely action with a view to putting things right.
The landlord has not investigated concerns about events that took place prior to July 2017 and, because the complaints were not raised and pursued with the landlord within a reasonable period, complaints a-e have not been investigated by this Service.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, complaint 1f is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in his opinion, ‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’.
In relation to the resident’s complaint about ASB within her block and around the estate, the landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it issued a stage one response to the complaint on 25 September 2020; however, the resident has not requested the escalation of her complaint. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the resident’s escalated complaint in which she raised other matters, but the resident did not set out in her complaint to this Service of August 2021 that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at any stage of its complaint procedure. The complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure and cannot be investigated by the Ombudsman at this time.
If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to this issue, or she considers that incidents of ASB are continuing, she should let the landlord know – together with the reasons why, so that it may respond accordingly. If the resident remains unhappy with any subsequent response to her complaint, she may refer the matter to the Ombudsman as a new complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a block. The resident has lived at the property since 1975.

The landlord’s obligations

Under the tenancy terms and conditions, the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and outside of the property, including drains, gutters and downpipes. The landlord is also responsible for maintaining and keeping in working order the following:
1. The fittings in the property for supplying water, gas and electricity.
2. Toilets and fixtures for washing (including basins, sinks and baths).
3. Room and water heaters.
4. All entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, rubbish chutes, lighting and other shared parts of all blocks of flats and maisonettes.
There is no obligation on the landlord to decorate the inside of the property. The tenancy terms and conditions state that the tenant must ensure that the inside of the property is decorated and maintained to a reasonable standard.

The landlord’s Complaints policy

The landlord’s Complaints policy (the policy) sets out its approach to investigating and responding to complaints raised by residents. It states that a complaint can be made at any time; however, it will not normally accept a complaint where the customer has delayed raising the complaint by more than 12 months. It adds that the landlord recommends that contact is made as soon as possible, to ensure access to data is readily available.

Summary of events

On 31 July 2018, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise concerns about what she considered to be “ineffective management” of the property, and to inform it of some of the issues she had encountered since 1975. The issues raised by the resident included:
1. reports of ongoing building works from 2003 and 2005 which caused significant noise and disruption.
2. the installation of windows which could not be cleaned externally.
3. a period of approximately 15 months in 2010/11 during which she had been without heating or hot water.
4. dangerous electrical wiring within the property prior to a rewire in April 2016.
5. problems with the lifts frequently breaking, and a prolonged lift installation in 2017.
6. the presence of blood and urine within the lifts.
7. that the bin chute rooms were locked and she could not dispose of her rubbish.
8. antisocial behaviour (ASB) including drug use within communal areas.
The resident said that she was going to take the matter to court to seek redress; however, she wished to write to the landlord first to bring the issues to its attention.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 August 2018. A formal response to the complaint was sent on 6 September. Within this, the landlord said:
1. While the resident had listed issues dating back to 1975, under its Complaints Policy it could only investigate matters which had occurred in the last 12 months.
2. It was able to confirm that the repairs department had advised that the lifts in the block were operating normally and were “monitored with no significant lift faults”.
3. It had referred the resident’s concerns about drug dealing within the block to the Community Protection Team for further investigation.
4. It was accepted that there had been some problems with the management of the resident’s block over the years; however, it would not be offering compensation.
The resident chased a response to her complaint on 3 October 2018, advising that she had not had a reply to her letter of complaint dated 31 July. The landlord responded on 5 October and communicated the outcome of its investigation. It added that the resident could appeal the decision if she wished.
It is not clear what transpired following this. However, in November 2019, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord in relation to outstanding repairs to the heating system within her property, and problems with the door entry system. The landlord responded to the complaint on 28 November. It said:
1. Works to the heating and door entry system were completed on 20 November. Its Quality Assurance Surveyor had been onsite to monitor the works to ensure that the required quality standards had been met.
2. The door system was tested and left fully operational.
3. The heating works – including the relocation of a thermostat, the fitting of non-adjustable valves to one radiator, and a TRV being fitted to another – had been “deemed satisfactory”.
4. Its investigation into the complaint found that there had been a number of communication issues which delayed the completion of the works. It wished to apologise for any distress and inconvenience that was caused as a result of the delay.
5. If the resident was dissatisfied with the response, she could request for her complaint to be escalated to the Chief Executive. It added that when doing so, the resident would need to explain, in detail, why she did not consider that the response had resolved her complaint.
From the evidence that has been provided, it is not clear whether the resident responded to this letter. However, in May 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman with regards to her concerns about repairs at the property and the management of the block. This Service contacted the landlord, and following further communication, it arranged to visit the resident so that her concerns could be discussed further.
On 25 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident following an attendance on 22 September. The landlord said:
1. The resident had advised of difficulties she had encountered when trying to speak with it. The landlord said that it was sorry to hear of this, and acknowledged the resident’s frustration.
2. The resident had raised concerns about works emanating from a neighbouring property. It had visited this property and no works were underway; however, drilling noise could be traced to another property. The works which were taking place were now complete.
3. It would be notifying the Community Safety Team of the resident’s comments that drug dealers were hanging around the landing area of the block. Although it noted that the door at the back was shut at the time of its visit to the block.
4. While it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the noise created by repair and refurbishment works in privately owned flats, works could be carried out during the day. If the noise persisted beyond 7pm, the incident should be reported to the resident’s Housing Officer.
5. The resident explained that a surveyor had visited the property on 16 September. Its records show that that this was to inspect the entire property with a view to establishing whether there were any further repairs – and to pay particular attention to the resident’s report of moisture behind the panelling in the lounge. The Surveyor reported that following his visit, he referred the panel in the kitchen for asbestos testing, and the resident would be updated in relation to the outcome.
6. The resident had raised historic concerns about the kitchen vent and that it had not worked since 2005. This had been fixed in February 2020.The repair history also detailed that a new boiler was fitted in July 2020, and in September its contractor attended to show the resident how to use the boiler and controls.
7. The resident’s Housing Officer would be following up on several repair issues, namely:
  1. The intercom not working to open the front communal door.
  2. A blocked chute.
  3. A crack to the kitchen wall.
  4. The fire safety alarm in the kitchen.
  5. The bathtub panel that had been patched with tape.
  6. The security light outside the communal door.
  7. Temporary work areas set up by a contractor that were no longer in use.
8. There was a caretaker for the block – however, he no longer resided in the building. Contact details were provided.
9. It would be working with the Housing Officer in relation to the outstanding works that had been listed, and would update the resident in approximately a months’ time.
10. It hoped that the letter had addressed the resident’s concerns; however, she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied with the response.
The complaint was subsequently escalated, and the landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 13 November 2020. In its response, the landlord explained that while it acknowledged that the resident’s concerns dated back to the beginning of her tenancy, its investigation had been limited to matters that transpired in the months leading up to the complaint. It said that it had focused its investigation on matters from January 2019, and summarised the events that transpired until its complaint letter of 25 September 2020. The landlord said:
1. While steps had been taken to resolve the resident’s issues, delays had occurred. This was in part because of a lack of appropriate action and progress on behalf of the property services department.
2. There had been communication issues. However, given the number of contacts the resident had made with the Chief Executive’s office, appropriate measures should have been taken earlier so that the works could have been coordinated.
3. As a result of its findings, it would be asking the property services department to remind all officers about the importance of taking prompt action, and ensuring that any requests or queries are followed through.
4. It had requested a further inspection of the property to investigate the issues raised by the resident. This would take place within the next 14 days. Following the inspection, the property services department should write to the resident with details of the actions they would be taking to complete any agreed repairs. A full post-inspection should also take place once all works were complete.
5. Given the situation with the Covid-19 pandemic, there may be issues with adhering to timescales and it could take longer to complete some repairs. However, it had asked the relevant department to ensure that it kept the resident updated.
6. The resident had been informed in June 2019 that her concerns would be escalated in line with its Complaints policy. While it could see that a response had been issued, it was from the property services department and it was not a complaint response. As a result, the resident’s complaint had not been progressed as it should have been.
7. In light of its findings, it wished to offer the resident £800 compensation. This was in recognition of the inconvenience, lack of update and appropriate action during this process.
The resident remained unhappy and asked this Service to investigate her complaint. In August 2021, the resident advised that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response for the following reasons:
1. The wall panel in the kitchen was removed and “left ruined” by the landlord’s contractors when tracing a leak. This needed to be replaced or fixed.
2. Aesthetic repairs within the property were outstanding.
3. The bathtub panel remained patched up with tape.
4. The bin chutes remained blocked, and she was struggling to dispose of her rubbish.
5. The fire alarm in the kitchen was not working.
6. She had not received any update in relation to the asbestos investigation.
7. The landlord’s response had not acknowledged the stress, inconvenience, worry, loss of sleep and ill-health that she had suffered during her tenancy.

Assessment and findings

The evidence provided to the Ombudsman demonstrates that the resident has had concerns about the landlord’s handling of both communal repairs and those within her property for a prolonged period. When investigating complaints about responsive repairs, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the contemporaneous evidence that is available to establish whether the landlord has complied with its obligations and any service standards set out in internal policies when responding to reports of repair.

2018 complaint

When the resident first complained to the landlord in July 2018, she provided a list of concerns about the management of repairs within her block, and raised some specific concerns about repairs within the property. In response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns; however, it explained that it would only address the issues that had been reported in the 12 months preceding the resident’s letter. Given the landlord’s complaints policy, as detailed above, this was not inappropriate.
The landlord continued by explaining that the lifts within the block were operating normally and there were no significant faults; and that the resident’s concerns about ASB had been passed to the relevant team.
The landlord’s response to the complaint was not entirely appropriate. While the landlord was acting in line with its policy by not investigating the historic issues raised by the resident; the complaint response did not address many of the then current issues that the resident had mentioned within her complaint correspondence.
The landlord’s response discussed the functionality of the lifts at the time of the complaint; however, it did not comment on the installation that had taken place in 2017 and whether the works had taken longer than expected. In addition, the resident had raised concerns about the condition of the lifts in relation to cleanliness. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate these concerns further, and to comment on whether there was an issue with regards to the cleaning or maintenance of the lifts.
The resident had also explained that the bin chutes were locked, and she was unable to dispose of her rubbish. The landlord failed to comment on this or advise whether it had investigated this complaint. If the landlord was unaware of the situation before the complaint, the resident had put it on notice, and it therefore had a duty to investigate the matter and to see if there were any issues with the chute which were preventing the resident from disposing of her rubbish. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing in the circumstances.
In addition, given that the resident had raised some then current repairs issues, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to visit the resident and the block to ascertain what the exact issues were, and whether it was necessary to raise any repairs or take any further action. That the landlord did not take such action was a significant failing; and a missed opportunity to try to resolve the concerns raised by the resident.

2019 complaint

In November 2019, the resident made a further complaint and raised specific concerns about repairs to the heating system within the property, and the door entry system. A copy of the resident’s complaint correspondence has not been provided to the Ombudsman. However, within its response, the landlord advised that the necessary works were complete although it acknowledged that there had been “a number of communication issues which delayed the completion of the works”. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience that was caused as a result and informed the resident that she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
As detailed above, it is not clear if the resident responded to this letter. However, the landlord’s response to the complaint does not contain sufficient detail to demonstrate what its investigation had found. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address the repairs individually and to provide a summary detailing when the repair was first reported, what action was taken in response and whether its service standards had been met. Furthermore, while the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in the completion of the works, and that there had been communication issues, it did not consider whether any action should have been taken to remedy the inconvenience that was caused to the resident. This was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the repair records relating to the property from 2018 onwards. The records show that a job was raised on 1 May 2018 in relation to the radiators at the property “not working properly”. The records detail that the radiators were overhauled; however, it is not clear when the works were completed. The next entry in the records relating to the radiators was created on 18 June 2019 and this details that the thermostat was faulty and the resident was without heating.
The repair records contain three further entries in relation to the heating and the thermostat; however, the works were not completed until 20 November 2019 as per the landlord’s letter of 28 November 2019. As detailed above, when the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint it acknowledged that the heating system works were delayed. However, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman suggests that the works were delayed by approximately five months and that the resident was without heating and hot water for some – if not all – of this period. This is a considerable failing and should reasonably have been addressed by the landlord when it responded to the resident’s complaint.
The repair records do not contain any detail in relation to the door entry system repairs. If the repair related to the communal area, it would be reasonable for this information to be recorded elsewhere. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided more detail about this repair, what the fault was considered to be, and whether the repair was delayed by factors outside of its control when it responded to the complaint.
While the landlord’s repair records do contain some information about the repairs that were raised in relation to the property, the records are limited, and should reasonably contain more detail. Namely, whether any faults were identified on initial inspection, the nature of any required works, and the date of completion. Recording such information would help the landlord to ensure that it had an accurate audit trail for the reports that it responded to, and to help identify if there were any shortcomings in the service provided. As this information is missing from the records, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to ascertain exactly what transpired, and whether there were any mitigating factors affecting the landlord’s ability to complete the repair. Nevertheless, from the evidence that is available, the landlord significantly delayed in carrying out the repair to the heating system and failed to put matters right when it investigated the resident’s complaint.

2020 complaint

The Ombudsman made enquiries with the landlord in July 2020, following contact from the resident about outstanding repairs and concerns about the conditions within her block. In response, the landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns in more detail and to establish what repairs were required. This was appropriate.
In addition, the landlord wrote to the resident on 25 September 2020 following its attendance and addressed the concerns that she had raised during the visit. While it was not obliged to do so, the landlord answered some of the resident’s concerns about historic repairs. The landlord also explained that it would be taking steps to address the repair issues the resident had identified. However, the resident was dissatisfied by the response – and the landlord’s actions after it was issued – and escalated her complaint accordingly.
When the landlord issued its Chief Executive response to the complaint in November 2020, it provided a history of the events that had transpired from the resident’s original complaint in July 2018. It concluded that there had been a delay in responding to the resident’s concerns and that the relevant repairs department had yet to take action in response to the issues that were raised and identified during the inspection of the property in September 2020. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £800 compensation. It also added that the relevant repairs department would contact her within 14 days of its letter to advise of the actions it was taking in relation to the repairs.
While the landlord had acknowledged that there had been failings in its response to the resident’s reports over the years, the response does not show that the landlord had fully investigated and understood the issues in this case. For example, the landlord referred to the resident’s comments about the kitchen vent and confirmed that this had been repaired in 2020. In doing so, the landlord did not address the fact that the resident had mentioned that this had been broken since 2005. It did not therefore address her concern that the repair had been outstanding for 15 years. The landlord’s repair records do not contain sufficient detail to establish when the repair was first reported by the resident; however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to try to establish this when it investigated the complaint in November 2020.
While the landlord acknowledged some failings and offered the resident compensation for the inconvenience she had been caused, it failed to demonstrate that it had taken into consideration the impact of each individual failing. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate to provide a breakdown of each failing that had been identified and to detail the amount of compensation that the landlord believed was payable in respect of each. This would have helped to demonstrate that the landlord had fully understood and considered the facts of the complaint and how the resident had been affected by its failings.
In August 2021, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the repairs which had been identified in September 2020 were still outstanding. The repair records relating to the property do not show that the jobs in question had been raised in September 2020 – and there is no record of them being raised thereafter. The landlord has been aware since September 2020 that there are repairs outstanding both within the property and communal areas, and has not taken any action to remedy these. This is of particular concern given that one of the repairs identified related to the fire safety alarm within the kitchen. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that demonstrates that the landlord had tried to contact the resident in relation to these repairs after its Chief Executive response to the complaint.
It is noted that the landlord had started to investigate the resident’s concerns about a leak within the kitchen, and that the area had been tested for asbestos in September 2020. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord has obtained the results of the asbestos testing, communicated these to the resident, or taken further steps to investigate whether there is a leak. The resident has also expressed concern that a panel was moved to investigate the area, and this has been left damaged. It follows that the landlord has been aware that there is potentially a leak affecting the resident’s kitchen since September 2020 and has not taken any further steps to try to investigate the matter.
The landlord’s inaction was inappropriate given its obligations under the tenancy agreement and the circumstances of the case. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to confirm whether any repairs were required, to complete these repairs within a reasonable time, and to take steps to make good any damage that was caused to the decoration within the kitchen as a result of its investigation and repair.
That the landlord has not taken action to remedy any of the repairs identified in September 2020, or to liaise with the resident about them, is a significant failing. Furthermore, while the landlord had offered the resident a sum of compensation at the end of its complaints procedure in November 2020, this amount does not reflect the further distress and inconvenience that has been caused to the resident by the failings identified through this investigation. The landlord should therefore ensure that appropriate action is taken to put things right without further delay.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s response to repairs within the resident’s property and her block from July 2017 onwards.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

When the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about repairs in 2018 and 2019, its responses were lacking in detail and failed to address whether the repairs had been carried out in line with service standards. The landlord’s repair records do not contain sufficient detail for the Ombudsman to establish what jobs were raised and whether they were handled appropriately.
In response to the resident’s concerns raised in 2020 about outstanding repairs, the landlord appropriately visited the property and the resident to discuss her concerns further and to carry out an inspection. While the landlord offered the resident compensation for delays in completing repairs, the complaint response failed to demonstrate that the landlord fully considered the issues raised, and the impact that its failings in responding to reports of repairs had on the resident.
While the landlord had agreed to take steps to complete certain repairs in September 2020, the evidence does not demonstrate any action has been taken since and the repairs remain outstanding. In addition, there is no evidence which shows that the landlord has attempted to contact the resident about these repairs since its Chief Executive’s response to the complaint in November 2020. These further failings have compounded the inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident, and do not demonstrate that the landlord has learnt from the outcome of the complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Re-offer the £800 which was offered at the end of its complaint procedure.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
3. Pay the resident of total of £900 compensation comprised of:
  1. £500 for the delay in taking action to remedy the repairs which were identified in September 2020.
  2. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
  3. £200 for the lack of communication after the Chief Executive response was issued in November 2020.
4. Provide the resident with the outcome of the asbestos testing that was carried out at the property in 2020.
5. Assign a designated member of staff to liaise with the resident about any outstanding repairs within the property and communal areas. The designated member of staff should have sight of this report, so that the history of the complaints, and the resident’s view of which repairs are outstanding, are fully understood.
6. Arrange a further inspection of the communal areas and within the property to establish what repairs are required. The member of staff attending the property should have sight of this report, including all repairs which are reported as outstanding at the property.
Within four weeks of the inspection, the landlord should draw up a schedule of works required together with estimated completion dates and share this with the Ombudsman and the resident accordingly. The works should then be completed within the estimated completion timescale. The landlord should also schedule a date for a post-works inspection within two weeks of the completion of the works, and the outcome of this should be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should review its record keeping practices for responsive repairs to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained. This applies to works raised, works completed and resident contact. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.