Brighton and Hove City Council (202109037)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109037

Brighton and Hove City Council

8 December 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 in relation to:
    1. outstanding bathroom repairs
    2. Condition of the radiators
    3. Damp and mould
    4. External garden works

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a two–bedroom house owned and managed by the landlord.
  2. In June 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about outstanding carpentry issues in the bathroom, damp and mould in the bedroom caused by issues with the external brickwork pointing, and issues with the garden path, shed and fencing.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response in July 2021, it explained that it could find no record of a repair request for the bathroom. It subsequently asked the resident to raise any repair required with the repairs helpdesk. It noted that there was an outstanding carpentry job in relation to kitchen units dating back to November 2020, and explained that due to the pandemic, there was a large backlog of work. With regard to the damp and mould, it said that the damp team had raised a job on 26 May 2021 but had been unable to contact the resident to book it in. The landlord encouraged the resident to call the helpdesk to arrange a time. Finally, in relation to the garden, it said that the operative who had repaired the fence on 30 April 2021 had noted that the resident had requested to speak to a supervisor but this had not been picked up. Therefore, a manager would contact her shortly to arrange a visit. In addition, a job had been raised regarding the path and shed.
  4. The resident advised the landlord in July 2021 that she remained unhappy with its response, however. Following contact from this Service, the landlord later provided its final response on 1 October 2021. It explained:
    1. It had no record of any outstanding carpentry repairs in the bathroom. With regards to the kitchen units, the carpentry team had attempted to arrange works but had been unable to make contact. The resident would subsequently be written to with details on how she could arrange an appointment.
    2. The heating contractors had inspected the radiators in the WC and bathroom on 15 January 2021. Although they had surface rust, they were not leaking and would therefore not be replaced.
    3. The damp would be inspected on 5 October 2021, and would include an inspection of the pointing on the outside walls. Once that had been done, it would be in a better position to identify a permanent solution. However, in the meantime, an appointment had been booked for 28 October 2021 to carry out an internal fungal washdown to make the resident more comfortable whilst it identified a long-term solution.
    4. With regard to the concrete path and shed, two building operatives would attend on 5 October 2021 to identify any repairs. it confirmed that following a boundary check, it found that the fence belonged to the neighbour and therefore would be unable to carry out any future repairs.
  5. The resident has advised this Service that she remains dissatisfied and seeks completion of all outstanding repairs. In addition, a representative of the resident contacted this service in December 2021 to say that the bath needed sealant and that the bathroom taps leaked. It was stated that the resident also wanted a full assessment of the bathroom as she thought it needed updating.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. Before this Service undertakes an investigation into the landlord’s response to an issue, the matter must be raised as a formal complaint and exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. This is as it is important for the landlord to be given fair opportunity to address the issue in the first instance.
  2. The Ombudsman notes, however, that in this case, the resident raised a number of issues which were not included in her initial complaint and subsequently not considered by the landlord by the time of its final response in October 2021. This included external issues with moss on the walls, the behaviour of some of the landlord’s contractors, and her concern with the bath sealant, tap, and general condition of the bathroom.
  3. As these matters were not part of the original complaint, and have not been formally raised with the landlord for it to respond to under its complaints process, this investigation will not comment on them. The resident will need to contact the landlord’s repairs helpline to report the relevant issues, and should she remain unhappy with the approach, to raise a complaint where appropriate.

Damage to bathroom

  1. The Ombudsman is aware that on 8 December 2020 the resident reported an uncontrollable leak from the pipework between the toilet and sink. This was logged as an emergency repair and according to the landlord’s records, fixed the same day. The job was closed with a repair note indicating that the plumber ‘repaired leak to cistern supply’.
  2. There appears to have been some confusion between the resident and landlord in 2021, however, as in June 2021, the resident complained about outstanding bathroom carpentry work. This Service has been unable to see that any bathroom works had been scheduled for completion or that the resident had made a request for such work prior to this complaint. It is also understood that the leak occurred in the WC which was separate to the bathroom. As such, make good works would not have been related to the initial leak.
  3. The plumber’s recollection of the visit was that the resident did make mention to other repairs, but as there were no other leaks, she was advised to raise a separate job with the repair team. The landlord’s stage 1 response reiterated that no prior repair request had been made and so encourage contact with its helpdesk to raise repairs.
  4. This Service cannot see that the resident took this advice, however, and raised the outstanding bathroom repairs with the helpdesk. The landlord therefore would have been unaware of the works that were required. While it may have been practical for the landlord to have taken this opportunity to arrange an inspection, so that it could understand the works that the resident was referring to, there was also a responsibility for the resident to make a request via the appropriate channel.
  5. It was only when the resident contacted this service to escalate her complaint that she said that the bathroom floor had been damaged due to a leak. The landlord’s stage 2 response reiterates that no carpentry jobs had been raised other than to attend to the kitchen units and that it was unaware of any issue with the bathroom. As such it said it could not investigate the issue as a complaint.
  6. In the absence of evidence of what was discussed during the plumber’s visit, and no records of bathroom works being requested (or identified as necessary), this Service is unable to see that there was a service failure. The landlord acted appropriately in responding promptly to address the leak, and no follow on works were noted. Given that it clarified for the resident following her initial complaint that it was unaware of any outstanding bathroom jobs, and how the resident could raise this if works were indeed required, this should have been raised. The Ombudsman is unable to find fault in the absence of this.

Condition of the radiators

  1. The condition of the radiators did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint. However, the landlord acted reasonably in later taking the opportunity to incorporate this into the complaint and addressing it in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord received a repair request from the resident on 8 January 2021 and its heating contractor attended the property on 15 January 2021. The contractor reported the radiators as rusty but not leaking. The resident disagrees that the problem is only surface rust, but no evidence has been provided that the radiators are leaking or not functioning properly. The landlord is entitled to rely on the assessment of its heating contractor to conclude that the radiators do not currently need replacing.
  3. As the Ombudsman understands it, the contractor would be willing to sand down and paint the radiators if the resident so wished. The resident should therefore contact the repairs helpdesk to request this if she is interested in that option.

Damp and mould

  1. This Service’s investigation shows that a job was raised on 21 April 2021 that included inspecting damp in the property to confirm whether the resident was experiencing water ingress or condensation. It is unclear when this took place or what the landlord concluded at this time, but records show that a subsequent job was raised on 26 May 2021 to apply an anti-fungal solution to mould in the bedroom and bedroom cupboards. With recognition that the landlord later confirmed the issue to be caused by condensation, this was a reasonable approach.
  2. According to the landlord, however, the damp team were unable to make contact with the resident. This Service has been unable to confirm this, but can see that in the following month, in the landlord’s stage 1 and post–stage 1 complaint responses, it did advise the resident of this and ask her to get in touch. It does not appear that the resident did.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it explained that a visit was booked in for 5 October 2021 to inspect the property both externally and internally. It appears that the landlord also undertook some external works, but noted that this had not resolved the issue for the resident. On 5 October 2021, however, the resident was absent when the visit occurred. She had left a note of what she wanted the contractors to look at (which the landlord says did not mention damp). However, because of her absence, no internal inspection was possible. It is unclear whether the external inspection went ahead or what was found at this time as the inspection report has not been shared.
  4. The landlord has since advised this Service, nonetheless, that no repointing works are required. It has explained that despite numerous attempts, it had been unable to contact the resident about internal treatment and the resident had not made contact as instructed. According to its correspondence, the damp team were finally able to speak with her on 19 November 2021, at which time, the resident refused the anti-fungal treatment. The resident has further declined offers made in May 2022 to undertake a specialist damp survey and ventilation survey or to have the anti-fungal treatment carried out in the meantime.
  5.  From the limited tests it has been able to carry out, such as surface moisture readings, the landlord strongly believes the problem to be related to condensation and has given the resident advice on this basis. A specialist damp survey would have enabled it to consider whether a greater issue existed, however, and was therefore a fair proposal.
  6. There is clearly a damp and mould issue in the bedroom that the resident is unhappy about. However, the landlord can only identify the cause and carry out necessary repairs with the co–operation of the resident. The landlord’s actions in attempting to visit and offering treatment and surveys has been reasonable.

External garden works

  1. In April 2021 the resident reported problems with the fence, the rear garden path as being cracked in places and the brick shed wall as also being cracked due to tree roots. An operative attended on 30 April 2021, primarily to look at the fence, at which point the resident said that she wanted a supervisor to attend so she could discuss matters. This request was not picked up, which the landlord apologised for in its stage 1 response. It said that to put things right, its external works manager would make contact to arrange a visit and that a new job had been set up for the building team to look at the pathway and shed. The landlord did explain however that its building team was working through a large backlog of jobs due to Covid but that they would be in touch as soon as they had availability.
  2. This Service can see that the manager did visit on 22 July 2021 and noted a loose fence post that needed bolting to a wall. Operatives visited in August 2021 intending to carry out work to the fence but found that they could not, due to parts of it being identified as beyond repair. The landlord also learned at this time that the fence was owned by the neighbour. It was therefore appropriate for it to advise the resident that it would be unable to carry out any further work.
  3. The building team had still not carried out a visit with regard to the path and shed at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response on 1 October 2021. However, the stage 2 response confirmed that two operatives would attend on 5 October 2021, at which time they would be able to identify if any works needed to be raised. According to the landlord, the operatives assessed that the tree root under the shed was dead and that the condition of the path was ‘ok’ and therefore not in need of repairs.
  4. The Ombudsman has considered the time delay in the resident reporting this issue on 21 April 2021 and a first visit not taking place until 5 October 2021. It is appreciated that the resident often felt she was getting nowhere because she was not immediately given a time and date for work to be carried out. However, the Ombudsman is mindful of the delays caused by COVID-19 and can see that the landlord forewarned the resident that there would be delay due to a backlog of jobs. While it still would have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept the resident up to date on when it intended to undertake the inspection, to manage her expectation, the Ombudsman cannot see that the delay resulted in an adverse impact on the resident’s living situation. While she described the path as crumbling, this was later found to be adequate for the time being. Overall, in the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of external garden repairs to be reasonable.
  5. The Ombudsman is unaware of the current condition of the path and shed. If the resident feels they have deteriorated further, she may wish to make a further report to the repairs helpdesk.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. outstanding bathroom repairs
    2. Condition of the radiators
    3. Damp and mould
    4. External garden works

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to contact the resident to clarify what carpentry works she feels needs doing in the bathroom/WC and to raise a job as necessary. If this remains unclear, the landlord should arrange an inspection to confirm the works for itself.