Bristol City Council (202110757)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110757

Bristol City Council

20 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs (windows, damp and mould) while residing in temporary accommodation.
2. The resident’s reports about the repairs at the start of the tenancy.
3. The resident’s reports about flooding of the back garden and pathway.
4. The resident’s reports about cracks in the driveway.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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 paragraphs 25 (a) and 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the resident’s report of repairs (windows, damp and mould) while residing in temporary accommodation.
The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints in which the resident and landlord are not in a landlord and tenant relationship (25a). The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body (39m).
The resident complained to the landlord about repairs in the property which she was staying in prior to moving to the current property. The resident reported concerns of mould, cracks, and asbestos in the broken flooring (July – August 2020). The landlord used its discretion to respond to reports of repairs after the resident had said that she raised the issues with her councillor and provided the landlord with hospital letters about her child’s health. The resident and landlord exchanged correspondence about the repairs in the temporary accommodation, the resident’s housing, and banding circumstances.
Although the landlord carried out repairs to the temporary accommodation, it has disputed that the resident was its tenant. The landlord has said that the Council did not place the resident in that property and were not acting as their landlord at the time. In its communication with the resident, it referred to the resident being ‘in real terms homeless’ and discussed the resident’s banding and rehousing options. The resident was eventually offered alternative accommodation.
The Ombudsman does not consider complaints about temporary accommodation (which usually falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman), nor does it consider complaints where there is insufficient evidence that the resident and landlord were in landlord and tenant relationship. Therefore, this complaint is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

There is a large volume of correspondence and information on file; this report contains a summary of the key information. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident has raised multiple complaints at multiple times. Only those relevant to this assessment are considered. New reports or concerns are not within the scope of this investigation.
At the time of the events, the resident had an introductory tenancy agreement with the landlord, which the landlord provided a copy of (sample). The property is a two-bedroom end of terrace house. The resident moved into the property in July 2020.
Under the tenancy agreement, the resident has the right to repairs and the landlord must carry out certain qualifying repairs within set timescales. The landlord must maintain: the interior and exterior structure of the property, roof, drains, gutters and external pipes, installations for the supply of water, gas and electricity, sanitation including sinks, baths, waste pipes, and showers (where it originally provided this).
On 17 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord about a prospective property which was owned by the landlord. This followed her complaint about the repairs in the temporary accommodation (5 June 2020). The resident explained her wishes to move into the property and acknowledged that she was aware that it was undergoing works. The resident said she viewed the property externally and that she wanted the landlord to ensure that it was fully repaired and ready for a move in date to be agreed. The landlord explained that any allocation of any property would need to be in line with its letting policy.
As part of the landlord’s internal investigation, it looked into the housing allocation process, as this formed another complaint which the resident raised to the landlord. The records indicate that the resident was offered new housing under a ‘direct offer’ due to priority and that this took place during the lockdown period of March – July 2020. The landlord noted that all of its services were suspended at the time.
On 13 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to explain that she accepted a direct offer on a property and she was advised that the property was finished. The resident asked if it was possible to finalise everything that week and to sign the paperwork and collect the keys. The resident stated that she did not require a viewing and had seen the property from the outside.
On the same date, the housing manager emailed the resident and explained that it had forwarded her request to the letting team who manage property sign ups. It advised the resident to attend a viewing to ensure that she fully understood the letting process and raise any concerns at the time.
On 16 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and stated that she accepted the offer on the property and provided everything that was needed, however, she was waiting on the landlord.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 16 July 2020 in respect of the resident’s complaint about the temporary property. The landlord detailed its response and redress for the repairs in the temporary accommodation whilst also acknowledging the resident’s offer of new accommodation.

The resident’s reports about repairs at the start of the tenancy.

According to the records and surveyor’s email, on 20 July 2020 the resident reported a problem with the electric shower, after moving to the new and current property. The surveyor arranged an electrician to attend on the same day and they could not find a fault. Further reports were made in August 2020 and each time the landlord arranged attendance by the relevant operative and took steps to address the issues. On 4 August 2020 an issue with the floor was identified and a new shower floor and tray was fitted on 10 – 13 August. The resident was without a shower for 4 days and the landlord noted that they had family nearby (to help manage this).
On 13 August 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident referred to the repairs in the historic property. The resident’s complaint went on to detail her dissatisfaction with the fact that there were repairs in the new property which were not completed at the point when she moved in (ie bathroom). The outcome which the resident sought was for the landlord to continue to repair the property as they confirmed that the works were finished before she moved in.
On 11 September 2020 the landlord received an update from its voids team following its complaint investigation enquiries. The landlord was advised that the bathroom work was complete. It was also advised of outstanding work to the garden (eg trees to be cut down, fencing installed from 15 September 2020).
On 5 October 2020 the landlord met with the resident. The landlord emailed the resident afterwards to acknowledge that there was a high number of repairs reported in the new property and it apologised for this. It said that it agreed a way forward. There would be additional fencing provided, the outhouse roof would be cleared of moss, it would clear rubbish from the garden and it would rectify a chimney leak as soon as possible.
The stage two final complaint response of 8 October 2020 addressed the original complaint about the temporary accommodation and also addressed the resident’s concerns about the condition of the new property. It focused on the repairs to the bathroom.
1. It understood that the resident was told that the works were finished but then she faced a further ten days of works to the bathroom.
2. The bathroom work was complete.
3. The property was advertised to have a wet room but there was an issue with the waste which became apparent when the shower was in use by the resident. The water was not flowing away quick enough; the landlord offered to lift the flooring to carry out repairs or to reinstate a bath suite facility. The resident opted for the latter.
On the same day, the resident reported that the bathroom repairs (conversion to a bathroom from a wet room) as per the landlord’s letter had not been completed. Communications between the parties confirmed that repairs had been completed at this stage, but this was not a conversion to bath suite as set out in the letter.
On 12 October 2020 the landlord contacted the resident and said that it would not be carrying out the bathroom refitting work (converting the wet room to a bathroom suite). It said that this was because the property had a functioning wet room and was accepted as such, and it would not be replaced as this would be an improvement that the landlord was not under an obligation to carry out.
The landlord’s communication to the resident in March 2021 detailed its position on this following the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. The landlord said that there was some confusion caused by the original stage two response which had suggested that a bath cold be fitted following a leak in the wet room, but this was a mistake and the landlord explained this to the resident on 12 October 2020.

The resident’s reports about flooding of back garden and pathway.

On 31 December 2020 the resident reported that guttering was blocked. The landlord raised works to clear the guttering. On 4 January 2021 the resident iterated the report about the blocked gutter.
On 13 January 2020 the drain company was to install a ‘new back inlet gully to clear drain’. The repair records show a list of works to address this, such as renewing damaged parts of the pipe work, breaking up and then reinstating some concrete and doing a pressure test.
The resident complained on 20 January 2021 about flooding to the pathway in front of the front door. She explained that the drainage company had visited and recommended extra drainage at the property, and that she explained this to the landlord’s surveyor and repairs team but she was told that this would not be provided due to the budget. The resident provided photographs of flooding across the pathway outside the front door. She also reported that the back garden was ‘a swamp’, due to the flooding, and too dangerous to maintain.
The landlord logged the complaint on 21 January 2021.
On 26 January 2021 the surveyor visited the property to assess the drain issue. Afterwards, the resident contacted the surveyor to query his role and scope, and the surveyor responded that he had visited in relation to the drainage issues as highlighted by the complaint. The surveyor also gave a list of other items which he said that the resident had raised with him on the visit, and he responded to these, although they were outside the scope of the reason for his visit. He gave an opinion on these which including referring to the relevant teams/the landlord (January – February 2021).
The landlord responded at stage one on 1 February 2021.
1. The landlord’s surveyor acknowledged the complaint to be about unresolved flooding.
2. It met with the resident on 26 January 2021 to survey the property and flooding. There were no other defects needing repairs; it sent the resident an email about this.
3. It asked the drainage company to quote works for repairs. This included ‘install a new gully to the path and new drain to the rear of the property, to run off excess water into the new gully’.
4. It also arranged for holes to be filled where tree stumps had been removed. The resident would landscape the garden.
5. It attached a list of works and said that the drain company would be in touch. These were works for the rear and front garden.
6. It apologised for the service received.
The resident and landlord exchanged further correspondence and the resident escalated the complaint.
1. The resident said that the complaint was about the flooding in the back garden and the works stated by the landlord (such as pumping excess water) was not done. She listed items which were not completed, such as only one ‘eco channel’ installed rather than two, no drainage at the rear back garden so water still had nowhere to go, the front garden had not been made good it was actually worse as the grass had gone and there had been no grass seed.
2. The resident said that she could not maintain the garden as per her tenancy agreement as it was not in a suitable condition to begin with, and the damage was caused by the landlord’s actions in removing trees.
3. The resident said that the cracks which had appeared in the pathway were not historic and they were there after the contractors had attended to do the drain works.
In response, the landlord said:
1. It had previously communicated that once work commenced, there may be a change in the specification, and it would not need to communicate this with the resident as the same outcome was to be achieved.
2. It queried the resident’s claims that there were outstanding jobs and explained that the work it was undertaking was more than expected.
3. It explained that it was looking to reduce the puddle forming to the front of the property and improve the drainage to the rear garden to help water drain away from behind a shed, and not the whole garden.
4. It said that minor flooding would occur following heavy rain and it would need time to drain naturally. It spread soil where there had been tree stumps removed. It considered that it was natural for standing water to develop until it drained away naturally into the drainage system following prolonged, heavy rain.
5. It disputed the resident’s comments about the work and said that it had carried out substantial work and extra gullies had been fitted above the agreed work, all drainage drained into the existing rain water pipe and would be removed from the property.
6. It also agreed to cut out a ‘historic crack’ on the driveway at the resident’s request to bring the matter to a close. The landlord later explained that it had arranged to cut out and repair the affected area (cracks) but that this was not admitting liability, rather it was to close the matter. It said that the drain company would be in touch to address this (18 February 2021).
The resident disputed the landlord’s comments and said that the water was being retained and she was confident that following heavy rain the situation would remain the same, as the water had nowhere to go (18 February 2021).
The landlord said that it had asked the drain company and they confirmed that the works would resolve the issue of the flooding to the front path and help drain the water from the back garden, as per the resolution of the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord again to escalate the complaint following the discussions it had with the landlord (19 February 2021). The resident said that the work which was carried out was not as originally agreed and the resident felt that this would not resolve the flooding. The resident was also unhappy about cracks in the driveway following the drain company’s work (to resolve the flooding).
On 22 February 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to state that the works which were carried out were per the standard and specification which was agreed to resolve the complaint and it still needed to do the cracks in the driveway. Once the work was completed, it would post inspect this. There was also grass seeding which was to be completed.
On 26 February 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response.
1. The scope of the works changed as the drain company felt that this would further improve the drainage and reduce flood risk.
2. A qualified surveyor oversaw the work and the landlord apologised for not informing the resident of the alterations, however, changes were made once the work was underway and considered necessary.
3. The landlord did not find a failure in carrying out more works than detailed in the stage one response and would not have needed permission from the resident to agree to the works, although it accepted that it would have been good customer service to inform the resident of the drainage work amendment.
4. The drainage company would be attending to the cracks in the driveway and this was scheduled to be completed.
On 16 March 2021 there was a work order for a CCTV test, to renew the gully cover and break out the concrete path and reinforce it.

The resident’s reports about cracks in driveway.

In April 2021 the resident raised a new concern with the landlord. She reported that the path was supposed to be fixed following the drain works, however, the drain company was only authorised to carry out a patch repair and the rest of the path was left in disrepair. The resident reported that the drain company had told her that the path needed to be replaced as it was in bad condition from the water damage (26 April 2021).
The landlord said that it had repaired the path following a complaint by the resident that the contractors had damaged it in March 2021 and it could not otherwise see a trip hazard from photographs provided by the resident (27 April 2021).
The landlord’s response was provided by a member of staff who was subject to a separate complaint by the resident (which is not within the scope of this investigation). The resident contacted the landlord about the staff communication and reported to the landlord that it was refusing to repair the pathway (27 April 2021). The resident continued to email the landlord and explained that if it did not fix this then she would take legal action (28 April 2021). The landlord logged this as a complaint.
On 4 May 2021 the landlord’s responsive repairs surveyor contacted the resident to arrange a visit for 10 May 2021. It explained that it had seen photographs and videos but it was difficult to assess; therefore it would visit to inspect the full pathway and make an informed decision in relation to its condition.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response.
1. It interrogated the housing management system, looked at photographs and videos which the resident supplied, did a joint visit and inspection (10 May 2021) and spoke with previously involved officers.
2. It did not consider that the condition of the front footpath was a trip hazard or a health and safety risk. However, it agreed to carry out some repair work to the area (eg to lift and replace some of the curb edging, replace broken gully grate covers). The resident agreed and the landlord was going to arrange this.
3. The landlord agreed to look at photographs of ‘water ponding to the front footbath’ following heavy rain but the resident had not provided this.
The resident escalated the complaint on the same day. She explained that there had been severe water damage and the pathway was in bad condition. She did not agree that the suggested repairs (eg the work to the edge) was all that the landlord should be doing.
On 21 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation and provided further comments. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s photographs of pooling and said that this was not a trip hazard or a health and safety risk. It said that pending the stage two investigation outcome and pending the resident’s agreement it would arrange the contractor to look at the levels of the ground running to the gully by the step to see if there was anything they could do to help the water to drain quicker without causing risk.
On 2 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord further photographs and explained that these showed the pathway with new holes in the new concrete and ‘substantial dips’ which her child could trip over. The resident also said that she sent additional evidence to the landlord which stated that the path should have been ‘smashed out and reinforced a long time ago’. The resident asked the landlord to notify her if it had not received her evidence as soon as possible so she could resend these. The landlord acknowledged this on 8 June 2021 and asked for more images of the whole path that the original images had been taken from and the resident responded with this on the same day.
On 16 June 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response.
1. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint to be about the path being a trip hazard, pooling of water on the same path, the path should have been smashed and reinforced some time ago and the gully covers were broken.
2. The landlord’s senior surveyor inspected the path and did not identify trip hazards. This was defined as a defect with more than 25mm depth/height. However, it noticed that some materials were ‘subject to weather and can alter over time’ so agreed to carry out a further inspection.
3. No evidence was found to show that there was a risk by reports of pooling water. However, the surveyor would carry out a reinspection when information was provided to show that the pooling had worsened.
4. The landlord studied the resident’s evidence and at the time, the officer pointed out patch repairs needed to the path; the landlord said that work orders were subject to change once works commenced as issues were identified or it was realised that repairs were not needed to put right damage.
5. The gully covers were replaced with metal ones and the concrete around the gully would be inspected at the same time of the path.
6. It did not find a failure as the appropriately qualified officer said that there were no trip hazards but it was willing to reinspect this if anything had changed and needed to be attended to.
The landlord provided a further response to this complaint on 27 July 2021. It said that after it visited the property on 13 July 2021 it would be willing to repair the front footpath, and this work was raised and instructed and waiting on commencement dates.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports about repairs at the start of the tenancy.

The resident’s complaint about the repairs at the start of the tenancy was addressed at stage two of the complaint that had initially been about repairs in the temporary property. The landlord considered that the resident was told that the works were finished in the new property but then faced 10 days of additional works to the bathroom.
The landlord repaired the bathroom floor in four days within a total duration of about 10 days of visits from different operatives, following the resident’s first report about this. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps in arranging for its operatives to attend to inspect and address the issue within a reasonable timescale each time following the reports. Its final position was not unreasonable, as it explained why it could not ‘improve’ the bathroom and that it was not obliged to do this.
However, there was a failure in its communication about the repairs. It incorrectly stated that the bathroom would be converted to a wet room in the final response (8 October 2020) and later amended this (12 October 2020). Following the resident’s continued dissatisfaction about the bathroom repairs, the landlord reiterated its position five months later (March 2021). However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any redress following the error in its communication. Therefore, there is a service failure.
The Ombudsman has not investigated the other repairs as shown in the copy of the repair records, as it is unclear to what extent these were raised to the landlord as a point of dissatisfaction by the resident. The resident may raise any additional concerns about repairs to the landlord so that it has the chance to respond and explain whether there was a failure in its response times or its response to the reports.

The resident’s reports about flooding of back garden and pathway.

This complaint concerned the covered/blocked gully which was reported in late December 2019 and addressed on 13 January 2020. The landlord expanded the repairs and scope of work substantially in line with the advice which it said that it had received from the qualified expert as the original repairs did not address the issue. The works were completed in March 2020. There had been a protracted timescale of about three months, however, given the nature of the works and the expanding scope, this was not unreasonable.
It is clear that the original repairs as identified by the landlord became more complicated. The landlord apologised for the final timeframe (from January 2020 – March 2020). It apologised for not informing the resident at the time of the change in the scope of works. It provided an explanation for this to the resident, and it detailed the repairs which were undertaken and the objective of the work, which was reasonable to do. The landlord explained that the scope of the works changed and it apologised for not informing the resident at the time, which was also reasonable. It is acknowledged that the resident experienced inconvenience and time and trouble due to the repairs required to the front path and back garden, however, there is no evidence of failure by the landlord in its response.
The remaining dispute was over the efficacy of the works; the resident explained that she believed that the flooding would still be a problem under heavy rain conditions while the landlord explained that the works carried out were by qualified experts and it relied on this to support that this would resolve the problem.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord responded reasonably at the time, and appropriately relied on the advice of its suitably qualified specialist contractors. However, if there are any future incidents of excessive flooding then the resident may raise this for further investigation with the landlord.

The resident’s reports about cracks in driveway following drive repair.

The Ombudsman is unable to determine either way the dispute over the safety of the driveway (due to cracks) where the resident and the landlord were in disagreement about this. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports about this.
It was reasonable for the landlord to rely in the feedback from its surveyor when it received the resident’s reports disputing the safety of the driveway. The landlord invited the resident to provide photographic evidence, which she did. Following the resident’s reports about the cracks and her health and safety concerns, the landlord arranged an inspection of the driveway, which was reasonable. The landlord explained the feedback from its inspection and the reason why it did not agree that there was a safety hazard.
It was reasonable for the landlord to reassess the circumstances and evidence to establish whether it needed to carry out further repairs and then to explain its decision making and reasoning to the resident.
Furthermore, it was resolution focused for the landlord to propose to reassess the driveway cracks at a future date. This is because the landlord took into account the possible change in circumstances of the condition of the driveway.
The evidence shows that once the landlord reinspected it at a later date, it agreed to carry out works to address the new holes/cracks which the resident had reported.
Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response. This is because it appropriately arranged multiple inspections to determine if any repairs were needed in response to the resident’s reports about the cracks in the path and subsequently arranged for the required repairs to be completed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports about the repairs at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports about flooding of the back garden and pathway.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports about the cracks in the driveway.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the bathroom within a reasonable timescale and it acknowledged that the impact of the repairs, however, it did not provide redress for the acknowledged errors in its communication. The resident experienced time and trouble.
The landlord explained the change in the scope of the repair works relating to the flooding and apologised for not updating the resident at the time, which was reasonable. The landlord explained the reasoning behind its actions and the objective of the work, as well as the basis of its decision making, when the resident continued to dispute that the repairs would be effective or that these were not completed according to the level that she considered appropriate. This was reasonable.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about the cracks in the driveway and responded accordingly. When the resident continued to report holes and cracks, the landlord inspected these and shared its feedback. It also proposed to reassess this (which it then did) which was reasonable as it took into account the changing circumstances of the driveway.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 for time and trouble in respect of the error in its communication about the repairs at the start of the tenancy.