London Borough of Hounslow (202206213)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206213

Hounslow Council

24 January 2023

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:
1. Handling of repairs to the ventilation system in the resident’s bathroom.
2. Response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for renovation works to her bathroom that she completed independently.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a staff member.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord has advised that the resident first reported that the ventilation system in her bathroom needed repair in March 2020. However, at that time the landlord was only completing emergency repairs in line with Government guidance related to the Covid-19 pandemic. In February 2021, the resident reported that the fault with the ventilation system had caused damp and mould in her bathroom. The records suggest that the job was attended on 17 March 2021 and that follow-on work was required. In April 2021, the resident reported that she had renovated the bathroom due to the severe damp and mould, as a result of the delayed repairs, and sent the landlord an invoice for the works. This involved damp-proofing, tiling and replacing a radiator among other works.
Further works to clean the ventilation system were completed on 10 June 2021. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 21 June 2021, but no damp and mould was detected due to the works completed by the resident. A further visit was carried out on 23 August 2021, where a surveyor assessed the bathroom renovation works undertaken by the resident and inspected the room for signs of damp and mould.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord in October 2021 as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not offered compensation or reimbursement for the costs she had incurred renovating the bathroom. She advised that she had repeatedly pursued her concerns regarding the ventilation system with the landlord and via her MP throughout 2020 but nothing had been done. The damp and mould in the property had become worse and she had renovated the bathroom with the assistance of her daughter due to the impact its condition was having on her mental health. She expressed dissatisfaction with the behaviour of the surveyor who had attended, stating that they had been rude and suggested that the resident had completed the work out of vanity. She acknowledged that the landlord had previously offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill for the length of time it had taken to complete works to the ventilation system and believed that in doing so the landlord had accepted liability for her costs.
In its response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord noted that it had been due to install a wet–room in the property due to household vulnerabilities following an initial recommendation from Occupational Therapy (OT). It acknowledged that the resident declined the work to install a wet-room in August 2020 but explained that any damp and mould decoration works could have been factored in at the time. It said that the ventilation system repairs were outsourced to a specialist contractor in December 2020 and explained that it had faced significant disruption at that time, and the first half of 2021, due to the impact of Covid-19. It confirmed that an engineer had cleaned the ventilation system on 10 June 2021 and indicated that further review was possibly required. It had then reviewed the bathroom in June and August 2021 and found no additional signs of damp and mould.
It explained that it would not reimburse the resident for the alterations she had completed in April 2021 as she had not sought written permission, in line with the tenancy agreement, prior to completing the works and was therefore in breach of her tenancy conditions. It confirmed that it would not be liable for any future repairs required to the bathroom as the resident had completed alterations privately. It explained that it had previously offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience experienced by the repair delays and this did not represent a payment for acceptance of liability. It said it would investigate the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a surveyor internally and that this would be confidential and so it would not be able to inform the resident of the outcome of the investigation.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the delay in carrying out repairs to the ventilation system from March 2020 onwards. She also wanted an apology from the landlord and for it to reimburse her for the cost of renovating of the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said the landlord’s failure to handle the damp and mould and repairs to the ventilation system has impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is outside the role of our service to establish if there is a direct link between any errors by the landlord and any effect on the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
In addition, within her complaint to the landlord, the resident suggested that she felt discriminated against due to the colour of her skin. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to installations it had fitted in the property including ventilation systems. It would also be responsible for maintaining bathroom installations and for the structure of the property, including walls and floors. The resident is responsible for the internal decoration of the property.
The policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours. Routine repairs should be attended to within 20 days. The landlord’s website confirms that during the pandemic and subsequent lockdown restrictions imposed, it was only able to undertake emergency repair works in line with Government guidance. Following the easing of lockdown restrictions, it continued to complete non-emergency repairs but it experienced a back-log of repairs which meant that it was not able to meet target timescales.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for reporting repair issues, which fall under its responsibility, to the landlord. It confirms that residents may make improvements, alterations and additions to the property, provided that written consent is obtained. The landlord would not unreasonably withhold consent, but may make it conditional upon the works being carried out to a certain standard. If a resident carries out improvements, alterations or additions without the landlord’s written consent, or they do not meet the agreed standard, the resident would be in breach of the agreement and may be required to return the property to its former state. It further confirms that the resident would be responsible for any fixtures or fittings that they have installed (with or without our written permission from the landlord).

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the ventilation system in the resident’s bathroom.

In this case, it is not disputed that there had been delays by the landlord in carrying out repairs to the resident’s ventilation system throughout 2020 and early 2021. The landlord has advised that the resident first reported issues with the ventilation system in March 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic, and the work needed to be postponed as it was only completing emergency repairs in line with government guidance and lockdown restrictions at that time. The evidence suggests that the landlord attempted to progress the repair in November 2020, however, the contractor cancelled the work due to the pandemic. It then referred the work to another contractor in January 2021 who attended on 17 March 2021 following the easing of lockdown restrictions on 8 March 2021. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the records related to this visit. It appears that further work was required and work to clean the ventilation system was completed on 10 June 2021.
This Service acknowledges that the impact of Covid-19 and government-imposed lockdown restrictions were likely to have a significant impact on the landlord’s ability to complete non-emergency repairs, such as the repair to the resident’s ventilation system, during 2020 and 2021. There were limited steps the landlord could take to progress the repairs at this time for reasons outside of its control. It should be noted, however, that the information provided by the landlord in relation to the progression of the ventilation repair was largely a recollection of events that has not been evidenced through contemporaneous documentary evidence such as repair or communication logs.
Furthermore, whilst the landlord explained that it faced significant disruption and delays due to the impact of Covid-19 within its complaint responses, the record of events as listed above was not fully communicated to the resident. This would have been appropriate in order to demonstrate that it had fully considered the resident’s concern about the length of time it had taken to address the ventilation repair. As such, there has been a failing by the landlord as it failed to provide an adequate explanation or response to her concerns.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as the resident’s original report of the ventilation issues, communication between the landlord and the resident throughout 2020 and 2021 in relation to the repair issue or the outcome of the informal complaint made to the landlord in February 2021. The resident has advised that she was dissatisfied with the lack of communication from the landlord and that she needed to pursue the matter at regular intervals. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had acted in line with its obligations, by explaining the reasons for the delay, the actions it had taken in an attempt to progress the repair or the limitations it faced due to the impact of Covid-19, at any stage prior to the formal complaint being raised in October 2021 which is likely to have caused some inconvenience to the resident.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time. This has also prevented the Ombudsman from determining whether the alleged time and trouble spent by the resident was extensive and therefore likely to cause further inconvenience to the resident. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
It is noted that the landlord has advised that the ventilation system was repaired on 10 June 2021. The evidence shows that the operative cleaned the ventilation system which had a build-up of debris, but advised that they were not qualified to determine whether the ventilation system was working and recommended that the system was tested properly. The landlord acted appropriately by reviewing the property for any new signs of damp and mould during appointments in June and August 2021 following the renovation carried out independently by the resident. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any further investigation into whether the ventilation system was working as it should or whether it had been successfully repaired was completed. This would have been appropriate given the ongoing nature of the repair issue so an order has been made that the landlord reviews this to confirm that the issues with the ventilation system have been successfully resolved.
The records suggest that the resident was offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill by the landlord. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to when this was offered by the landlord, however, the records indicate that this was offered in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the extensive timeframe taken to address the ventilation repair. Overall, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as a means to acknowledge the significant timescales faced as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, in view of the additional record keeping and communication failings identified, this amount is not considered proportionate given the impact on the resident or the inconvenience caused in this case.
The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident an additional £250 compensation in recognition of the record keeping and communication failings identified. This brings the total compensation payable to the resident to £300 for this aspect of the complaint. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are proportionate in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration which may not have a permanent impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for renovation works she had completed independently.

The resident has requested reimbursement of £5195.71 associated with expenses she had incurred by independently carrying out renovation work to her bathroom in April 2021. It is not clear from the evidence provided as to the specifics of the works carried out to the resident’s bathroom as the invoice provided by the resident did not provide a breakdown of costs. Although the evidence suggests that works included damp-proofing the walls, tiling, replacing a radiator and re-decorating.
It is noted that some of the repairs reported to have been done independently, including the replacement of a radiator, may have fallen within the landlord’s repair responsibilities. However, this would not mean that the landlord would be obliged to reimburse the resident for the cost of carrying out the work as there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported any repair issues related to the radiator prior to carrying out the works. As such, the landlord did not have the opportunity to resolve any issue with the radiator prior to its replacement.
Whilst it is not disputed that there was a delay in repairing the resident’s ventilation system as detailed above, these delays were, for the most part, outside of the landlord’s control as a result of Covid-19. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported damp and mould in February 2021 when an informal complaint was raised. As detailed above, the landlord was limited in the steps it could take to investigate the issues reported until March 2021, when lockdown restrictions eased. As such, there were limited steps it could have taken to resolve the issues prior to the resident completing the renovation independently in April 2021 due to the time constraints.
Furthermore, prior to carrying out any alterations to her property, the resident would be required to gain written permission from the landlord. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s intention to carry out renovation works independently or that the resident had discussed this intention with the landlord prior to the works starting. As such, the landlord did not have the opportunity to agree or confirm its position regarding the proposed works. The landlord has an obligation to use it funds appropriately and effectively to the benefit of all its residents and it is entitled to consider what would be the most cost-effective way of carrying out repairs, in line with its obligations. Had the landlord been provided with this opportunity, it may have proposed alternative repairs to treat the damp and mould, considered whether the resident’s bathroom was due to be renewed as part of a programme of works, or revisited the previous OT recommendation, which may have proved cheaper for the resident.
There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had discussed the cost of the works prior to these being carried out. If a resident decides to proceed with repairs independently and incurs repair costs, they would need written confirmation that the landlord agrees to reimburse these costs in advance, otherwise they cannot rely on the landlord refunding any of these costs. The landlord would not be expected to offer compensation to the resident in view of these costs as there is no evidence of any service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement.
Within its response, the landlord advised that it would not be liable for any future repairs within the bathroom as the resident had completed works independently. Whilst this is in line with the tenancy agreement, the records show that the landlord had installed an adapted toilet in October 2020 which would fall under its responsibility to maintain. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether this was replaced by the resident, whether any other installations, including the bath, shower and sink were replaced or whether the work carried out independently was limited to the tiling, redecoration and radiator replacement. It is therefore recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to obtain a list of works undertaken to determine its repair responsibilities moving forward. It should then confirm its position to the resident regarding this matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a staff member.

As part of her complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of a surveyor who had attended her property to review the renovation works she had carried out independently. She advised that they had been rude and uncomfortably interrogated her about the work. She also felt they were suggesting that she had completed work out of vanity when she felt it needed to be done for her mental health. Within its stage one complaint response, the landlord advised that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and would be investigating her allegations internally. It explained that staff investigations were held in confidence and it would not be able to share the outcome of any investigations with the resident.
It was reasonable that the landlord could not share the outcome of any investigation in terms of any disciplinary matters related to the surveyors actions, if appropriate, as this would relate to employment matters which would be confidential and beyond the remit of this Service’s investigation. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s allegations (without compromising confidentiality) by commenting on the actions it had taken to investigate her concerns, confirming whether it had found any wrong-doing by its staff member and apologising if there was evidence that something inappropriate was said. Given that the resident had asked for further details about the investigation as part of her stage two escalation request, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed the steps it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns in order to reassure her that it had taken her allegations seriously.
The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with any information about its investigation was likely to have caused distress to the resident and, as a result, the landlord had been ordered to pay the resident a further £100 compensation in recognition of any additional distress this failure may have caused her.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the ventilation system in the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for renovation works she had completed independently.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is:
1. To pay the resident £400, comprised of:
  1. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor record keeping and communication regarding the delay in repairing the ventilation system, this includes the £50 previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid to the resident.
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress caused by its failure to provide an adequate response to the residents complaint regarding the conduct of a staff member.
Contact the resident to confirm whether she is experiencing any further issues with the ventilation system within her bathroom. If she is the landlord should then arrange for the ventilation system to be checked to determine whether it is functioning correctly if required.
Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to obtain a list of works undertaken to determine its repair responsibilities in relation to the bathroom moving forward. It should then confirm its position to the resident regarding this matter.