Wokingham Borough Council (202102033)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102033

Wokingham Borough Council

22 December 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

1.     The resident complains about:

  1. The suitability of the property for their medical needs.
  2. A boiler repair.
  3. Rats in the loft.
  4. A roof leak.

Jurisdiction

2.     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.

3.     After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39i of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint concerning the suitability of the property for the resident’s medical needs is outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

4.     The Council, in its role as a local authority, accepted a full housing duty for the resident and offered them the property. The resident accepted the property, however, did not consider it suitable for their medical conditions and their child’s mental health condition.

5.     The homeless and housing needs team carried out a suitability review and confirmed on 22 February 2021, that the property was unsuitable for the resident. It agreed to make a suitable offer of a property once one became available.

6.     The Housing Ombudsman does not have the authority to review complaints concerning housing applications made directly to the Council and, transfer applications made to the Council from resident’s who meet the reasonable preference criteria. The reasonable preference criteria includes applicants who require a move on medical, welfare grounds or due to a disability.

7.     The resident’s complaint concerns the suitability of a property allocated by the Council, following a housing application the resident submitted to it. Therefore, the Housing Ombudsman cannot review the complaint.

8.     The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, however, may review the complaint as it has the authority to consider complaints that concern the handling of housing allocations by the Council, including those applications that meet the reasonable preference criteria. The Ombudsman considers that it would be more appropriate, therefore, for the case to be brought to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for consideration. 

Background and summary of events

Background

9.     The resident held an introductory tenancy, for a two-bedroom property owned by the landlord (the property). The tenancy started on 8 February 2021 and ended in July 2021, after the resident was offered another property following the suitability review.

10. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord has repair obligations for the structure and exterior of the dwelling, including the roof, and installations for space and water heating.

11. According to the tenancy agreement, the resident must inform the landlord of a repair that it is responsible for, as soon as possible. The landlord must give the resident notice and reasons for planned visits, before attending the property. 

12. The tenancy states that the resident has a responsibility to keep their home free of pests however, the landlord will address reports of pests on a ‘case by case basis’, depending on the circumstances.

13.  Repairs reported to the landlord are categorised into four priorities:

  1. Priority 1 (Emergency)– Where there is an immediate and serious risk to people or property. – The response time is 3 hours;
  2. Priority 2 (Emergency) – Where there is a serious risk to people or property that is likely to develop if action is not taken quickly. – The response time is 48 hours;
  3. Priority 3 (Urgent) – Where problems are likely to cause major discomfort to tenants, or damage to the property is likely if the repair is delayed. – The response time is 15 working days;
  4. Priority 4 (Non-urgent) – Where items must be pre-ordered or made to measure. – The response Time is 40 working days.

14. The landlord has three stages within its complaints procedure, Early Resolution; Stage 1; and Stage 2.

15. The landlord’s compensation policy procedure explains that compensation would usually be agreed where the landlord is liable, and the resident can provide evidence of a quantifiable loss, The landlord can offer residents a gesture of goodwill, up to the value of £50. When considering compensation and gestures of goodwill, the landlord will consider the delays and the impact on the resident.

Summary of events

16. On 10 February 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there was no heating or hot water in the property. They informed the landlord that they had a child in the property and that both of them were disabled, and that they had no alternative means of heating and hot water in the property. The landlord reports that it attended the following day but, the resident was not present to give access. A card was left for the resident to rearrange the appointment.

17. On 12 February 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a patch in the living room ceiling and provided images of this. The landlord asked its contractor to arrange for a plumber to investigate.  An appointment was scheduled for the contractor to attend the property on 18 February 2021. However, the appointment did not go ahead. The parties’ respective accounts regarding why the appointment did not go ahead, differs. The resident reported that the appointment was missed however, the landlord reported that no one was at the property on the day. An alternative appointment date for 27 February 2021 was agreed.

18. On 19 February 2021, the landlord’s repairs team were notified about the presence of rats in the loft. The landlord raised an order for pest control to attend. They attended on 22 February and baited the loft.

19. On 27 February 2021, the landlord attended to the property as agreed, to address the patch on the living room ceiling. It reported back to the landlord on 1 March 2021, that it completed a stain block to the patch. It informed the landlord that during the visit, it became aware of a pressure related problem with the boiler.

20. The landlord raised an order for the boiler and attended on 2 March 2021. The resident was not present while the appointment took place but said that they received a call after the visit, advising that the boiler was repaired. The resident said that when they returned home that day, they found the boiler was displaying an error code indicating that the pressure issue remained, and that the contractor had left the property untidy. The resident contacted the contractor directly about this. The landlord instructed its contractor to arrange another visit however, the call between the resident and contractor was terminated by the resident in frustration. The contractor made the landlord aware that the call was terminated and that an appointment was not agreed.

21. On or around 5 March 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint concerning the handling of the repairs to the boiler. They mentioned in the complaint, that the boiler was still not working. We have not received a copy of the landlord’s response; however, within information the landlord has provided this Service, it is noted that the complaint was dealt with at the early resolution stage and responded to on 10 March 2021.

22. On 11 March 2021, the landlord arranged an appointment for the boiler repair to be attended to, on 12 March 2021.

23. The pest control contractor carried out a follow up visit on 10 March 2021. It found that the bait left during the appointment on 22 February 2021, had been taken, confirming the presence of the rats. It replenished the bait and reported that it would like to check the neighbouring properties for entry points. 

24. On 12 March 2021, the boiler engineer attended and did not resolve the issue. After the appointment, the resident emailed the landlord. They noted that the engineer informed them that parts were required, so another visit would need to be carried out.

25. Between 14 and 15 March 2021, the landlord internally queried whether it could get another contractor to attend the property, as despite the numerous visits carried out, the boiler issue remained. It asked the contractor who attended on 12 March 2021, how quickly the part required for the boiler would arrive and whether the installation of the part would definitely fix the boiler. The contractor was not able to confirm an arrival date for the parts. Therefore, the landlord passed the repair over to the alternative contractor, on 15 March 2021. The contractor visit on 18 March 2021 and thereafter, ordered a part.

26. It returned to fit the part to the boiler, on 24 March 2021 however, it did not gain access. The resident denied being made aware of the appointment and said that at the time of the appointment, they had been staying with their parents. A card was left for the resident to call and rearrange the appointment.

27. On the 15 April 2021, the pest contractor informed the landlord that it was unable to reach the resident to arrange an appointment, following its visit on 10 March 2021.

28. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 April 2021, about the boiler and rat issue.  The landlord provided the resident with the contact details for the pest contractor, and they arranged an appointment for 12 May 2021. The resident also arranged an appointment for the parts to be fitted to the boiler, on 5 May 2021 however, they later rescheduled this for 12 May 2021.

29. On 5 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and reported that the damp patch in the living room had returned following a period of rain. In addition to this, they expressed concerns about the ongoing rat issue and boiler repair. They confirmed that they had upcoming appointments for the pest and boiler contractors respectively.

30.  The landlord recorded the resident’s email as a new early resolution stage complaint, separate to the complaint it recorded in March 2021. On 6 May 2021, it asked the roofing contractor to attend to investigate the leak.  The contractor booked an appointment to attend on 10 May 2021 and said that it left the resident a voicemail, notifying them of this. However, the appointment was considered as a ‘no access’. A card was left for the resident to call and reschedule the appointment, which they did, for 14 May 2021.

31. When the pest contractor attended on 12 May 2021 it reported that the previous bait it laid, remained in place and ‘no fresh rodent activity was observed’. It acknowledged that the resident had reported that they still heard noises though, said from what was described, that the noise may be from birds. To clarify that there was no further rodent activity, it left the bait in place and agreed to attend again on 11 June 2021. The boiler engineer also attended on 12 May 2021 and fit the part to the boiler, which resolved the issue.

32. The roofing contractor attended on 14 May 2021 and found that scaffolding was required for works to be completed to the roof. The scaffold was erected, and the contractor reported to the landlord on 27 May 2021, that the leak was in the valley on the left hand side of the roof. It stated that a temporary repair had been carried out and recommended repairs to replace the valleys on the right and left hand side of the roof.

33. The landlord provided its early resolution response to the resident 20 May 2021, it confirmed that the boiler was repaired on 12 May 2021. Said that the roof leak had been repaired and that further repairs to the roof would be completed. In respect of the rats, it said that the contractor found no evidence of rats when it visit the property in March 2021. It said that its contractors pointed out that there may be birds in the roof and a new round of baiting would be completed on 13 May 2021.

34. The resident responded, disputing the accuracy of the landlord’s response in relation to the roof repair and the rats. They said that the roof was not repaired, as it continued to leak when it rained. The resident said that when they first reported the patch in February 2021, the landlord’s response was that there was no active leak, which they did not believe was correct. In addition, the resident disputed the landlord’s findings about the rats. They said that it was not in March 2021, but May 2021, when the contractor found no evidence of the rats. The resident said the presence of birds, was associated with the roof repair and was causing an influx of flies and maggots in the property. The landlord progressed the complaint to stage one of the complaints procedure.

35. On 30 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord informing that the scaffold was in the wrong place to address the leak. In addition, they reported that the pressure issue on the boiler had recurred.  The resident noted that when the boiler previously broke down, they were not offered alternative heating by the landlord and therefore, had to purchase their own.  The landlord contacted the roofing contractor for clarification on the issue raised with the scaffolding. It received confirmation that the scaffold was in the wrong place, but the contractor explained that it was still able to complete some of works it identified to the valley. In response to the report about the boiler, the landlord raised this with its contractor and an appointment was scheduled for 7 June 2021.

36. The stage one complaint response was issued to the resident on 4 June 2021. The landlord provided a chronology of the actions taken in respect of the repairs. It confirmed that the pest control contractor would be attending on 11 June 2021, to confirm whether the rats were present. It confirmed that the suspected issue with birds, was linked to the disrepair to the roof which it confirmed was being addressed. It arranged for a surveyor to attend and inspect the property to identify the internal repairs and, informed the resident that an appointment had been scheduled for the boiler engineer to attend on 7 June 2021.

37. The resident responded to the stage one response and disputed the accuracy of the landlord’s chronology. They provided their own chronology of events, to the landlord and it carried out a review of its stage one response.

38. On the 7 June 2021, the resident reported that the boiler engineer had agreed to attend for 8 am however, did not arrive until 8:25 and on arrival did not knock the door. The landlord raised this with the contractor and another appointment was booked for 19 June 2021, at the resident’s convenience. The boiler was repaired during this appointment. 

39. The landlord’s surveyor visited the property, on 8 June 2021, to assess the remedial works required internally following the leak. They also inspected the scaffolding and the roof; after the visit they instructed the roofer to attend promptly and also and undertake checks to other areas of the roof that they had observed. The surveyor wrote to the resident with details of the repairs that were raised to address the remedial works identified. The surveyor also confirmed that the scaffold would be adjusted to cover the area that was causing the leak and the works it instructed the contractor to complete. On the same day of the surveyor’s attendance, the resident rescheduled the pest control appointment booked for 11 June 2021, to 18 June 2021.

40. On the pest control visit, the bait was removed. The contractor said that that the resident had not reported any further issues with rats. It confirmed no further visits were necessary.

41. The landlord provided its review of the stage one response to the complaint on 22 June 2021. In relation to the complaints concerning the rats, it acknowledged that the baiting and monitoring had taken longer than expected. It attributed this to appointments having to be rescheduled and issues with contact numbers provided. However, it found no fault in how the investigation into the issue was carried out and therefore, did not uphold the complaint. The landlord advised that separate to the rats, the contractor suspected that birds were getting into the roof through a hole, and this was being addressed within the roofing repairs it would be completing.

42. Regarding the repairs to the boiler, it upheld the complaint due to the ongoing issue and delay in repairing the boiler. It offered the resident £100 in recognition of this. In addition, it accepted that temporary heaters should have been offered to the resident and agreed to reimburse the resident the costs of the temporary heaters they said that they purchased themselves, if they provided a receipt.

43. In respect of the roof repair, the landlord reported that after receiving the first reports in February 2021, it believed that the damp patch was old and not a current issue as it was dry at that time. It clarified that during that particular time, rainfall was not heavy enough to identify the leak which presented itself in May 2021. It confirmed that the works to the roof were slightly delayed as a result of the scaffold being positioned incorrectly and apologised. It concluded that it was satisfied that the roof defect was present when it was first reported in February 2021 and explained that it recognised that had the matter been investigated at that time, the disruption and time taken to resolve the matter would have been minimised. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident £50 compensation.

44. The resident progressed the complaint, as they remained unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord had offered. The landlord provided its final response on 27 July 2021. It decided that a further investigation was not necessary, as it found that the compensation offered to the resident was reasonable.

45. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman for consideration. The parties agreed to take part in our mediation process, however, were not able to reach an agreement to resolve the complaint. Therefore, the case was progressed to investigation.

Assessment and findings

Boiler repair

46. The landlord was first alerted to an issue with the boiler on 10 February 2021 It attended to this within 24 hours however, the resident was not present to provide access. The resident said that were informed that the landlord was aiming to attend the following day, but no arrival time had been given. When the contractor attended, it left a card for the resident to call and rearrange the appointment. There is no evidence that the resident did this. In the resident’s recollection of events, they said that they mentioned the boiler issue to the landlord’s contractor and understood that the boiler would be looked at the same time the landlord attended to the damp patch in the living room.

47. In the evidence this Service has been provided, the landlord did not receive another report about the boiler, until 1 March 2021, when the contractor provided feedback following its visit to the property on 27 February 2021. In response to this second report, the landlord attended within 24 hours of the report. The repair was unsuccessful, and the resident contacted the contractor directly to report this. Due to tension during the call, the resident terminated the call without an appointment being scheduled. The landlord was informed of this and subsequently received a complaint from the resident regarding this. It took eight days before it arranged an appointment for the contractor to return on 12 March 2021.

48. During the appointment on 12 March 2021, the boiler was not repaired, and the resident informed the landlord the same day. It promptly sought to establish with the contractor how long the part required to the boiler would take to arrive. On receiving confirmation that a date of arrival could not be given, it decided to allocate the repair to an alternative contractor, who it believed would be able to complete repair sooner.

49. Following the attendance of the alternative contactor on 18 March 2021, a part was ordered, and a visit took place on for the part to be fitted, on 24 March 2021. The appointment was missed by the resident however, the parties agree the appointment date was not communicated. Thereafter, the repair was not completed until 12 May 2021.

50. The initial missed appointment by the resident was not due to any service failure by the landlord. When the landlord was made aware about the boiler again on 1 March 2021, it responded promptly. Its actions in passing the repair over to another contractor was a reasonable decision, as it did so to aid the completion of the repair as efficiently as possible following the previous unsuccessful repairs.

51. Nevertheless, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord repairing the boiler. It took more than two months and several visits before the boiler was repaired. This is outside of the landlord’s 48 hour emergency response time.  While the repair was outstanding between March and May 2021, there were lapses in the landlord’s communication with the resident, which ultimately contributed to the delay. It took the landlord a total of eight days to reschedule an appointment, after the unsuccessful repair attempt on 2 March 2021. This is despite it being made aware of the disagreement during the call between the resident and its contractor, on 2 March 2021. In addition, after the contractor’s visit to the property on 18 March 2021, the landlord did not contact the resident to book an appointment to fit the part required to the boiler. It was the resident’s email, dated 28 April 2021, that prompted the arrangement of the appointment on 12 May 2021. Given the nature of the repair being associated with the provision of heating and hot water, how long it was outstanding for, and the vulnerability of the household, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the outstanding repair was completed sooner than it was. Its service standard is to complete emergency repairs within 48 hours and the repair took significantly longer than this to be repaired.

52. The boiler issue recurred again on 30 May 2021 and the contractor did not attend in the time frame that it agreed with the resident on 7 June 2021. This resulted in the repair being delayed until 19 June 2021. The missed appointment was an inconvenience to the resident and resulted in the repair taking longer than the landlord’s service standard of 48 hours to complete. The landlord addressed this appropriately; it reacted quickly when the resident notified it of the missed appointment, apologised to the resident and rescheduled the appointment on their behalf.

53. When responding to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in the completion of the repair and an issue with an appointment not being communicated to the resident, for the 24 March 2021. It acknowledged that the resident was having to top up the boiler pressure themselves and this was an inconvenience. It also said that its contractor should have offered the resident temporary heating. The landlord upheld the complaint due to the delays in addressing the repair and it offered the resident £100.

54. It was appropriate for the landlord to uphold the complaint and offer compensation in recognition of the delay. Its compensation procedure, notes that it can offer gestures of goodwill up to £50 and its offer exceeds this. However, its offer is not proportionate to reflect the extent of the service failure and the impact it had on resident.

55. As explained above, there were issues in the landlord’s communication with the resident, which resulted in the repair remaining outstanding for two months. Even though the resident was able to top up the boiler themselves, the heating and hot water was still intermittent for a prolonged period of time, which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. This is further supported by the resident’s reports that they stayed with relatives whilst the repair was outstanding. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s response. An order of revised compensation has been made in recognition of this finding.

Rat infestation

56.  The tenancy agreement indicates that the landlord will decide whether it will deal with pests, such as rats, in a resident’s home on a case by case basis.  However, the landlord has obligations to repair defects if they are allowing pests to access the property.

57. The landlord’s responses to the report about the rats in the property was appropriate. It promptly arranged for the contractor to attend the property when it was made aware about the rat issue. Its contractor’s visits were consistent. There is no evidence that when the landlord was made aware on 15 April 2021, that the contractor could not reach the resident, it tried to contact the resident. This is a shortcoming, but it does not amount to a service failure, as this did not contribute to any delay in addressing the issue. By the time the visit was carried out on 12 May 2021, the contractor found no fresh activity from rats. Its decision to not uphold the formal complaint regarding the matter was justified.

Roof repair

58. After the resident emailed the landlord about the damp patch on, 12 February 2021, the landlord appropriately requested that its contractor send a plumber to investigate this. The contractor attended within a reasonable time after the report was made. It reported back to the landlord on 1 March 2021 that it had carried out a stain block to the patch. The contractor did not investigate whether there was a leak as it believed that the leak was historic.

59.  Given that the area was dry, it is not unreasonable that a full investigation was not carried out at the time. The leak was not active when the patch was reported on 12 February 2021 and there were no reports of any leak between then and when the landlord attended on 27 February 2021. Therefore, it would not have been necessary to order works to review the roof on this basis. Even though the patch returned, this was nearly three months later.

60. Following the report of the active leak on 5 May 2021, the landlord reacted promptly to the report and arranged for its roofing contractor to attend. The landlord was quickly alerted to the error with the positioning of the scaffold and proactively made enquiries with its contractor about this so that it could establish what had happened. In addition, it gave the necessary instructions to its contractor about the works it expected it to do.

61. It took a total of 37 working days for the landlord to complete the repair. The landlord’s service standard does not specify the time it expects to complete roofing repairs.

62. Nonetheless, the landlord maintained communication with the resident regarding the roof repairs and clarified what repairs were being carried out. It took reasonable steps to manage the problem with the scaffold and, arranged an internal survey of the property, so that it could scope the internal repairs required to address any damage from the leak.

63. In the response to the complaint, the landlord accepted that the patches reported in February and May 2021, were caused by the same fault. It found that the leak could have been identified sooner, had its contractor investigated what had caused the patch, when it attended in February 2021. It found that there was a slight delay in the completion of works due to the scaffolding being positioned incorrectly and it apologised for this. It offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its finding that the leak could have been resolved sooner, and the disruption caused by the leak.

64. The landlord’s response and offer of compensation was proportionate. The presence of the leak between May and June would have caused inconvenience to the resident and the offer is proportionate to reflect this. Moreover, this Service notes that the landlord agreed to complete internal remedial works to the area affected by the leak, which was a reasonable offer of resolution.

Determination (decision)

65.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord, in relation to its response to the boiler repair.

66. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord, in relation to its response to the rats.

67. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the roof repair complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

68.  It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that there was a delay in completing the repair and offer the resident compensation. It is noted that its offer does exceed the amount suggested in its own compensation guidance. However, the level of compensation offered, does not reflect the impact that the delay and service failures had on the resident. Having inconsistent heating and hot water would have caused the resident distress, especially given their vulnerabilities. Moreover, the landlord has accepted that it should have offered the resident temporary heaters, which would have gone some way in alleviating the impact of any loss of consistent heating. 

69. The landlord acted promptly to the report about the rats, was consistent in its follow up visits and was able to effectively resolve the issue.

70. In respect of the roof repair, there was no service failure in the landlord’s response to the initial report about the patch in February 2021. After the report of the leak in May 2021, the landlord appropriately responded to address the repair and the issues that arose with the scaffold. It agreed to complete remedial repairs once the leak was resolved, which was appropriate, as this would restore the property back to its condition before the leak. The offer of compensation is appropriate relative to the inconvenience the resident experienced while the leak was ongoing between May and June 2021. 

Order

71. That the landlord pay the resident an additional £100 compensation in recognition of the above finding of service failure in its response to the boiler repair. The payment is to be made within four weeks of the date of this report. Once the payment is made to the resident, the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service.

Recommendation

72. That the landlord pay the resident the £150 it offered during the complaints process, if it has not already done so, within four weeks of the date of this report comprising of:

  1. £100 in relation to the handling of the boiler repair.  
  2. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the roof repair.