Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

London Borough of Hounslow (202118241)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118241

Hounslow Council

9 August 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal guttering.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a one-bedroom, ground-floor flat situated in a building with similar properties.
  2. The resident first reported that the guttering was leaking in 2018 and repair works were previously undertaken on 09 May 2018. However, in April 2020 and July 2021, the resident reported that the guttering was still leaking. The landlord has provided this service with its repair records which indicate that repair works were subsequently completed in June 2022.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 3 August 2021 regarding the guttering of the communal area leaking into his garden. He reported that the leak was causing discolouration of the patio, and washing the joints of the slabs away. The resident also reported that the issue had been ongoing for five years. This was, in the resident’s opinion, due to several missed appointments and lack of communication. Moreover, the resident complained that he needed to repeatedly call the landlord to chase for information; however, this was difficult due to staff hanging up or long wait times. Finally, the resident advised he was having difficulty pursuing the repairs as he had a disability and was taking medications at the time.
  4. In its stage one response, issued on 23 August 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay and acknowledged that this had been caused by a breakdown in communication between the landlord and the various contractors involved. The landlord assured the tenant that it would provide feedback to the contractors to avoid future failures. Furthermore, the landlord said it would provide regular updates on any appointments and works undertaken and that the resident could have a direct point of contact. Finally, the landlord advised the resident that it had sought a quote to erect scaffolding which would be erected shortly after, and it would ensure that works would be completed in a timely matter.
  5. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint through this service as the repairs were still incomplete despite the landlord having erected scaffolding. The landlord issued a stage two response on 6 December 2021, 28 working days after the escalation request. The landlord explained to the resident that contractors attended his property and partially repaired the guttering, but while undertaking works, they identified that the scaffolding needed to be extended. The landlord also acknowledged that there had been further unreasonable delays. The landlord apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  6. After the landlord’s stage two response, the resident reported further leaks to the guttering, which have been addressed by the landlord and completed in June 2022, as shown by the landlord’s records.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord operates a repairs policy. This policy states that the landlord is responsible for a number of repairs, including drains and gutters. Four different categories of repairs are identified with different timescales of completion. There are, accordingly, Emergency, Priority One, Priority Two Urgent and Priority Three Routine. Routine repairs are defined as repairs that cause inconvenience but are not urgent and do not pose an immediate risk to a resident’s health and safety. Repairs and cleaning gutters/downpipes are categorised as routine and should be completed within 20 working days. 
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also shows a commitment to missed appointments and ensures that it will take all reasonable steps to minimise them and keep residents informed throughout the repairs process.
  3. Furthermore, the repairs policy states that where qualifying repairs are not carried out within the set timescales, the landlord will be liable to pay compensation to the tenant. The compensation is set to £10 plus £2 per day for every full or part day that the repair remains outstanding, after the end of the second prescribed period to a maximum of £50.
  4. Finally, the landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord shall issue a stage one response within 15 working days and a stage two response within 20 working days. If the landlord expects it will need more time to investigate the complaint for any reason, the resident will be kept informed.

Repairs to the guttering

  1. It is not disputed that the repairs to the guttering were delayed beyond the landlord’s proposed timeframes for completing routine repairs. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the repairs should have been undertaken within 20 working days, but it ultimately took over a year to complete them. The resident was dissatisfied with the delays and expressed frustration due to the several missed appointments and lack of communication. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset, and in some cases, different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to provide clear communication should this be the case. In this instance, there was a repeated communication failure between contractors which led to delays and missed appointments which were unreasonable in the circumstances.
  2. In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged there had been delays which had been caused by its poor communication between itself and the contractors, for which it apologised. It also appropriately provided feedback to its contractors to avoid such events happening again in the future, and committed to providing updates for the remaining repair works.
  3. The contractors attended the property in November 2021 to clear and seal the guttering, but while on-site, they discovered that the scaffolding needed to be extended to complete the repair. Delays due to the requirement for additional equipment are reasonable, but as with above, the Ombudsman would expect such delays to be clearly communicated to a resident. In this instance, despite its assurances of improved updates, there is no evidence that it provided any such updates having encountered these further delays. These further delays led to the resident having to expend further time and effort in chasing updates and escalating his complaint.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation up to £50 will be offered in instances of unreasonably delayed repairs. While the landlord appropriately apologised, it is not evident why it did not provide its position on compensation, given that this was required by its policy.
  5. In summary, the landlord’s initial delays, along with its subsequent failure to provide updates despite its promise to do so amounted to maladministration in the circumstances. While the leak in the resident’s garden area would not have caused significant detriment, it was nevertheless frustrating and the delays would have caused distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, compensation of £250 is appropriate to reflect the landlord’s maladministration and the impact it had on the resident.
  6. The Ombudsman has also identified that the landlord’s complaints policy states that stage two response should be issued within 20 working days from the escalation request. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord responded outside of its timescale policy, namely after 28 working days; however, in this instance, the delay was not significant and did not contributed to the delayed works.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response regarding repairs to the guttering.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of its delays and communication failures.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.