Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202005287)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005287

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

1 September 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 response to the resident’s:
1. reports of various repairs in the property.
2. reports about a boundary dispute with a neighbour.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is also a local authority. The tenancy commenced in 1998. The property is a three bedroom house with a small garden that backs onto a road, and it is next to a privately owned property.
The landlord’s obligations are to maintain and keep in good repair the external and internal structure of the property (walls), as well as various fixtures and fittings such as kitchen and worktops (including sinks), shower unit, windows (including latches and hinges), and roofs (including tiles). The resident is responsible for kitchen doors and drawers and fences between properties (with exceptions).
Repairs should be completed within a reasonable timescale. Emergency repairs are responded to within 24 hours and routine repairs are responded to within 15 working days. Major repairs and improvements will be batched together into programmes and the landlord will contact the resident to agree appointments and access.
The landlord’s contractors will often deliver materials to be left in a secure area ahead of the repairs, and rubbish shall be collected in bulk within one working day of the repair being completed.
If a problem is reported about the repair, the landlord will send an inspector to determine any works required; depending on the nature of the work it may only be able to advise of timescales and provide more accurate details once this is known. Random inspections may be arranged for quality assurance purposes.
The landlord will give reasonable notice before entering a property; this will be arranged for a mutually convenient time (except for extreme circumstances such gas leak).

Summary of events

In September 2019 the landlord carried out rendering to the external areas of the property. This was described in the repair records ‘EWI’ external wall insulation. The resident explained that during this process, the rendering material burst into the property and she had to intervene to stop this. Following this, cracks appeared in various areas such as the lounge, the toilet room and a spare bedroom. An inspection was carried out, however, a copy of the report or the recommended repairs arising from the inspection have not been seen.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she was also experiencing a boundary dispute with a neighbouring property (private tenant) around this time. The resident maintained a fence in her garden and said that the neighbour would reportedly argue with her about land and damage parts of the area around the fence.
The records show that in October 2019 there was a new leak reported from the bath into the garage.
On 19 May 2020 a leak was also reported on the kitchen sink. The resident explained the kitchen sink had come away from the wall and water would cascade behind the sink and had caused mould behind the sink. The resident managed this by putting down tea towels.
On 12 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to complain.
1. The resident said she complained in September 2019 about the neighbour damaging her front lawn. The housing manager did not contact her after returning from annual leave.
2. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2020 and was told that the complaint had been raised last year; the resident was told she would be contacted within 48 hours but had not. The resident could not access her housing manager.
3. There were so many issues, such as damage and disrepair which had arisen in August 2019 which remained outstanding.
4. There was also a separate issue about rent accounts, which has not been considered within the scope of this investigation.
On 7 July 2020 the landlord issued a stage one response.
1. The resident complained about the lack of contact from the housing manager about the garden. The neighbour caused issues when they cut their grass such as digging up the garden.
2. The resident contacted the housing officer on 10 September 2019, 5 November 2019 and 8 June 2020.
3. In September 2019 the housing officer tried to call the resident to explain that they would need to refer to sales plans for the neighbouring property to see the defined boundary. The resident complained following the missed contact in June 2020. The landlord tried to meet service standards but this was not always possible and it acknowledged the lack of call back. It acknowledged that the matter should have been resolved following earlier calls and it apologised for the inconvenience.
4. The housing officer spoke with the resident on 15 June 2020 and said that the boundary plan showed that the boundary was in a straight line and arrangements would be made for a surveyor to measure and confirm the boundary.
5. The landlord advised the resident to register any concerns in future about repeated contact to ensure that the matter was raised to a supervisor or manager.
6. In respect of the repairs, the housing maintenance team confirmed a program of works were planned to complete the ‘defects’ at the property. These were to be completed as soon as possible but there were pandemic delays. There were additional works which would be completed following the completion of the works for the defects.
The landlord has provided a record of ‘service requests’ detailing some of the repairs which were raised. However, it is unclear what the circumstances were in respect of the repairs. Based on the landlord’s stage one response, there were defects which were awaiting completion and then there was a further set of repairs which were to be completed after.
On 4 September 2020 the resident contacted the Ombudsman about her complaint.
1. She had been advised since June 2020 by the landlord that repairs were a priority in her property.
2. These were to the kitchen sink which was collapsing, plaster had fallen from the inside walls on the landing after the landlord had rendered the property, there were cracks in the living room walls, there was mould and mildew, there was a hole in the toilet room, and work to the garage was incomplete.
3. The landlord said that the pandemic affected the work but the resident disputed this.
On 7 September 2020 the landlord noted that there was a leak from the bath through to a ceiling below through the electrics.
The Ombudsman contacted the resident on 9 January 2021 to apologise for the delay in its service and to explain that it would request an update on the status of the complaint from the landlord.
On 10 January 2021 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to highlight the resident’s complaint about the kitchen sink unit, falling plaster in the toilet and bedroom, and a crack in the living room wall, mould and damp, reports about garage works, and how the rent account has been managed since the start of the pandemic.
On 11 January 2021 the landlord responded to the Ombudsman. It said that the resident’s complaint was received on 12 June 2020 and responded to on 7 July 2020; it directed the resident to contact the customer team to escalate the complaint.
On 22 January 2021 the landlord and resident spoke over the telephone and on 26 January 2021 the resident emailed it to escalate her complaint saying that:
1. The housing officer failed to provide boundary plans for the property which had been requested in 2019 due to issues with the adjoining neighbour.
2. In October 2020 the housing officer said that they had more important things to deal with.
3. The repairs were still outstanding to the lounge, following the rendering works in September 2019.
4. The kitchen sink unit was falling apart and water spilling behind the unit. Work tops were worn and doors had been tightened multiple times.
5. There was a dispute about the agreed appointment of 5 November 2020
  1. The resident took time off from her agency work to be at the appointment which was scheduled for 13.00 – 16.30.
  2. The contractor attended earlier than the appointed time and liaised with her son about the repairs, which the resident felt was not appropriate.
  3. The resident missed the opportunity to set out her concerns directly during the visit and wasted the time off work.
6. The spare room had issues of damp, asbestos, cracks and the inspector had put a job through to make good cracks to wall and ceiling, skim walls, renew window board, damp treat the windows wall and carry out an asbestos test.
7. When the contractor attended, they initially said that the work was just to fill in some cracks. Then, upon the resident’s dispute, they said that the work was more extensive. The resident had to clarify this with the landlord as the contractor was unaware.
8. The work which was carried out had not been to a standard which the resident was satisfied with, for example, the contractor put windowsill filler along ceiling cracks and the contractor also told the resident’s nephew to handle materials such as taking the unused materials to the garage.
9. The resident reported a repair to the shower.
10. The resident reported a repair to the toilet room as she discovered cracks and damage to the wall.
11. The resident could not decorate or improve the property until the repairs were carried out and found that this was unfair and she was uncomfortable in the property.
On 9 March 2021 there were repair records which stated ‘asbestos tests’. The resident told the Ombudsman that she did not know if there was asbestos in the property, which had cracks in it, and upon painting parts of the walls she thought that there may be patterns in how the paint dried which could be related to asbestos. She disputed that the asbestos was adequately assessed and expressed her concerns for her son and her family’s wellbeing.
On 19 March 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response.
1. It explained that some of the resident’s concerns were not escalated to stage two as they were new; it had therefore addressed these separately at stage one and then considered the originally raised concerns at stage two.
2. The housing officer contacted a planning officer on 15 June 2020 and referred the resident’s request for the boundary between the properties to be inspected and then chased an update on 1 July 2020. The housing officer told the resident on 9 October 2020 that visits had been put on hold due to the pandemic restrictions on non-urgent visits and outstanding priorities would be addressed in accordance with urgency/referral date. The planning officers were still working through the backlog to date (March 2021).
3. The resident communicated concerns in October 2020 about how the contractor intended to address a window repair and asked for the window to be refixed following the EWI (‘rendering’) works. This request was granted and the works were raised. Decorating works which had been planned were put on hold while this repair was outstanding.
4. The contractor later advised that this work to the window was not necessary and only needed a windowsill installing (November 2020).
5. The resident contacted the landlord as she was unhappy about this as the work had already been discussed and agreed in October 2020. The resident reported that the window did not open as the windowsill had been forcefully installed.
6. The contractor later arranged for the initially planned work to be carried out, but the appointment had to be cancelled and rearranged for 21 December 2020. This was carried out and confirmed in discussion between the resident and landlord on 11 January 2021. Then, the lounge decorating works were raised to be programmed as a priority.
The landlord did not evidence its separate stage one response to the Ombudsman and it did not address in its final response the resident’s other concerns which she had escalated, such as:
1. cracks in the toilet room
2. shower repair
3. reports of cracks, asbestos, and issues with the spare room
4. the kitchen repair or the dispute over whether the resident should be charged for this.
On 8 May 2021 the resident confirmed the outstanding concerns about her complaint to the Ombudsman.
1. The landlord had re-rendered the property and carried out work to the garage roof in 2019 and since then the resident had been ‘fighting constantly’ to get works carried out. She was vulnerable and diabetic and was paying rent for a property that she could not enjoy. This had affected the resident’s mental and physical wellbeing.
2. The landlord said that she was not given a specific timeframe for the appointment of November 2020 and that she was told 12.30 – 16.30. The resident disputed this and said that she received two text message (dated 19 October 2020 and 4 November 2020) from the landlord stating that the appointment was between 13.00 – 16.30.
3. The landlord inspected the kitchen in March 2020 and said that the parts were no longer available so they would change the surfaces and tiles; the resident chased this and they came to show her samples in April 2021.
4. The landlord said that the resident would be charged for the damage to the surfaces but the resident disputes that she caused the damage or neglected the property which she has been occupying since 1998. The resident said that the damage was caused by the landlord’s re-rendering in September 2019; this had damaged internal walls of various rooms and the landlord was aware of this.
5. Decoration to the lounge was outstanding; works were arranged 18 months after they were supposed to be carried out (5 February 2021). The resident had to rearrange due to the pandemic but the contractor had not been in touch and the resident was left with a plastered wall which followed works in 2019.
In September 2021 there were further reports about the shower leaking through to electrics into the garage below.
In August 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman that the shower is still problematic and that she will occasionally hear the water gushing from the shower down to the garage below. The resident said that the landlord’s contractors did attend the shower when she reported this each time but they would diagnose the issue to be with the sealant, however, she disputed this as the sealant was often intact, so it is unclear what the reason is for the repeated leaks. The resident explained that she would prefer for an independent inspection to take place.
The resident explained that the contractor’s workmanship has generally not been to an appropriate standard, for example, they used sealant on cracks, or they do not plaster properly, and she has also not been reassured about the asbestos investigations that the landlord carried out

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property.

The resident’s complaint of June 2020 to the landlord stated that there were repairs in the property which were outstanding since August 2019. The landlord explained that there was a planned programme of works which was delayed due to the pandemic and that the additional repairs would be carried out after this (July 2020).
The landlord has not clearly set out what the programme of works were and what the additional repairs were. Its records indicate that it carried out several inspections. The Ombudsman has not seen the repairs which have been identified following the inspection, nor has it seen evidence to show that these were carried out within a reasonable timescale. The resident said that these arose in 2019, and some were carried out in 2021, while some were outstanding as of 2022.
It has been difficult to establish the full set of repairs as the inspection outcomes and resulting repair records have not been seen.
The landlord has failed to evidence a proportional investigation into the repairs. The landlord did not provide evidence to show that it took reasonable steps to communicate its action plan to the resident.
The final response addressed a dispute between the resident and contractor about the scope of one set of repairs. There was a delay in carrying out agreed works to the windows, due to the contractor’s dispute over the works on his arrival to carry them out. The resident had to contact the landlord to clarify the repairs and have the originally agreed work to the windowsill carried out. This had been scheduled for October 2020 and then it was carried out in December 2020. The original report was not seen.
The landlord has failed to evidence that it completed the repairs within a reasonable timescale. The landlord did not offer the resident proportionate redress for the evident delay caused by the lack of clarity over the scope of the works. This was unreasonable.
The landlord did not investigate the appointment dispute, which the resident specifically complained about in her escalation, neither did it investigate reported delays to the repairs or the decoration. This was also unreasonable.
The landlord said that some of these issues were addressed as a new complaint, however, it did not evidence its investigation of these or provide the relevant response. This was unreasonable.
The landlord did not address the resident’s dispute over whether the damage to the kitchen sink was from wear and tear at the time of addressing the resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable, although it has since carried out the disputed work.
Overall there has been an unreasonable delay in completing repairs and the lack of clarity over what the repairs were following inspections. The resident has experienced uncertainty over repairs, a reportedly unresolved shower leak over the garage, and she has experienced distress at the thought of exposing her son and her family to asbestos due to the cracks which remained unrepaired for so long.
Despite the restrictions during March to June 2020, the landlord could have done more to ensure that it fulfilled its repairing obligations within a timely manner. It did not provide a clear action plan or communication to the resident about the repairs, and the resident had to dispute the works which contractors turned up to carry out based on varied understanding about the jobs. The resident experienced time and trouble and distress and inconvenience.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the boundary dispute with the neighbour.

The landlord’s communication has been protracted following the resident’s initial reports about the boundary dispute. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had chased this several times. The landlord explained the status of the planning team’s workload and that it had been affected by the pandemic (no estate visits for non urgent work) and that it was now working on the backlog and working in order of urgency (March 2021).
The resident said that this has remained unresolved (August 2022). Overall, the landlord has failed to evidence that it has taken proportionate steps within a reasonable timescale to engage with the private neighbour or to address the resident’s reports that they were digging up the resident’s property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the boundary dispute with the neighbour.

Reasons

The landlord failed to evidence a proportionate investigation into the resident’s reports of repairs in the property. The landlord has not evidenced that it fulfilled its repairing obligations within a reasonable timescale. The full scope of the repairs and the corresponding completion records have not been clearly set out. The landlord failed to offer reasonable redress for evident delays and failures in the management of the works.
The landlord failed to take reasonable steps within a reasonable timeframe in response to the resident’s reports of the boundary dispute with the neighbour.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a full inspection of the property to identify any required repairs and then provide the resident and this Service with an action plan and timescales for the works to be completed. This should include an assessment of the resident’s reports about asbestos concerns in the property.
2. Provide the resident with an update on its action plan to address the fence and boundary dispute with the neighbour.
3. Pay the resident a total of £550 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble (comprised of £475 for the repairs and £75 for the boundary dispute).