Slough Borough Council (202113255)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113255

Slough Borough Council

5 September 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 handling of:
1. Repairs following a water leak affecting the resident’s property.
2. Communication and the associated complaint.

Background

The resident in this case is represented by a relative, who was involved throughout the landlord’s complaint process. To remain clear, this report will refer to “the resident” and “the representative”.
The resident has a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord.
The representative reported a leak coming from the resident’s walk-in shower on 4 May 2021, which the landlord’s work order said had “soaked the kitchen, carpet outside the bathroom and the cooker”. The work order was to investigate where the leak was coming from and isolate the cooker socket to make it safe. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the resident’s property on the same day. The resident said the contractor attended and confirmed it would be requesting an urgent repair for the leak. A separate contractor attended and disconnected the cooker.
The representative said they had continued to contact the landlord following the contractor’s visit as there had been no further repairs completed. The representative contacted the landlord again on 12 June 2021 to report that the leak had continued and had caused the resident’s kitchen ceiling to collapse. The representative said when they reported the issue, they had been told a contractor would attend within 4 hours. The representative called the landlord again after 4 hours, during which they have said they were told the resident was “not entitled to assistance” out-of-hours as they were “not disabled”, and the request would be passed to the customer services team. The representative told the landlord the collapsed ceiling meant wiring had become exposed in the kitchen. They also said there were clear signs of damp.
A contractor attended the resident’s property on 13 June 2021 to make the toilet safe and functional. The representative said the contractor confirmed further repairs to the bathroom and kitchen were required and these would be requested as “urgent”.
The contractor attended the resident’s property again on 29 June 2021 and 2 July 2021 to make the kitchen ceiling safe.
The representative raised a subsequent complaint on 7 July 2021. The complaint mentioned:
1. The issue had been reported around 2 months prior to the complaint being made.
2. The property was unsafe and posed a risk to the resident, who had mental health vulnerabilities.
3. The resident’s social worker had witnessed the living conditions and reported them to the landlord as “unacceptable” and meant the resident was “at high risk of injury”.
4. Contractors who had attended the property on 2 July had left rubbish in the resident’s front garden which prevented the gardener from doing their job.
5. The contractor had failed to submit a timely report of the issues in May 2021.
The landlord agreed to arrange for the resident to stay in a hotel while works were being completed, from 11 July 2021. The contractor began repair works at the resident’s property on 19 July 2021.
The representative contacted the landlord again on 26 July 2021, having returned to the resident’s property. They stated that the contractors had left more rubbish outside the property and that a door key had gone missing. The representative also explained they had paid for the hotel for the resident as it “had not been booked” by the landlord. The stay had also been extended as work had not been completed within the given timescales.
The representative contacted the landlord on 29 July 2021 to state the rubbish had been removed from the front garden, but the rubbish had ruined the grass. They also reaffirmed the fact the ceiling issue was reported on 12 June 2021 and not responded to until 2 July 2021.
The landlord responded to the representative on 2 September 2021. It said it had “missed an email” when requesting further information and that there had been a “breakdown in communication” between the operatives and planning team. The landlord also said it had made changes to its system as work orders marked as “complete but with follow ups” were not flagging as outstanding. The landlord made an offer of £1176.92 compensation to the resident, made up of:
1. £680 for distress.
2. £170 for time and trouble.
3. £326.92 for damage to personal belongings.
The representative contacted the Ombudsman on 2 September 2021. They said:
1. They had informed the landlord of the resident’s mental health issues and vulnerability, but the landlord had ignored this.
2. The landlord had told them it had mislaid the assessment of the property and not submitted it in a timely manner, which caused the delays.
The representative responded to the landlord on 24 September 2021 and rejected its offer of compensation. The landlord then issued a stage one complaint response on 26 October 2021. The landlord reaffirmed the information it had provided on 10 September 2021 and outlined that some of its processes were being reviewed and additional learning was being implemented because of the case.
The representative requested escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process on 18 November 2021. They said the offer remained unchanged and, therefore, unsatisfactory. The representative also said the “human element” of the complaint had been ignored and the landlord had “failed to comprehend the seriousness, neglect and mistreatment” imposed on the resident. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 30 December 2021. It apologised for the delays and said:
1. It had failed in the diagnosis of the issues and took too long to act.
2. It should have more direct involvement in serious complaints, such as this one.
3. Repair work should have taken place when it was reported on 4 May 2021.
4. It apologised for the issues experienced with rubbish left in the resident’s front garden and the alternative accommodation.
5. The ceiling had not contained asbestos and the wiring hanging from the kitchen ceiling had not been “live”.
6. The offer remained unchanged and was within the landlord’s compensation policy guidelines.
The representative remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and responded on 30 December 2021. They said it had taken 20 days to confirm the ceiling did not contain asbestos. The representative addressed each point the landlord had made and disagreed with the amount of compensation it offered and said it was “insulting”. They said the issues had had a “huge impact and inconvenience” on the resident and requested escalation to “stage 3”.
The landlord responded to the representative’s request on 6 January 2022 and said it had “nothing to add” to the response and that its position “remained unchanged”. The representative contacted the Ombudsman on 17 January 2022 to outline their continued dissatisfaction and a request for higher compensation.

Assessment and findings

Reported leaks and the consequent repairs

The landlord’s scope of services document provides information about its repairs policy and the timescales in which it should respond to a reported repair. The timescales are set out into categories. These are:
1. Emergency – 2 hours.
2. Urgent – within 3 working days.
3. Repairs by appointment – no more than 20 working days.
The policy also provides examples of what repairs the landlord would consider for each timescale. It states an emergency repair could be “serious water leak from a water pipe, tank or cistern; making safe collapsed ceilings and floors; unsafe electrical fittings and lighting sockets.” The representative reported a water leak, later confirmed as “urgent” by a contractor which demonstrated the severity of the leak, a collapsed ceiling, and wires hanging from the collapsed kitchen ceiling. The examples in the repair policy and the actual reported issues are almost identical, therefore it would have been reasonable of the representative to expect the landlord to have addressed the reported issues within 2 hours.
The representative first reported a leak on 4 May 2021 and the landlord’s contractor attended to it on the same day. However, the attending contractor identified the requirement for further repairs and suggested these would be raised as “urgent”. Therefore, the representative would have been reasonable in expecting another appointment within 3 working days, in line with the landlord’s timescale for urgent repairs. However, it was not until 27 working days later on 13 June 2021, when the kitchen ceiling had collapsed, that the landlord attended the property again. This demonstrated a substantial failure by the landlord to follow its applicable repairs timescales and provide an appropriate level of service to a vulnerable resident. The Ombudsman has also found the landlord’s delayed response to the reported leak to have likely been a contributor to the collapse of the resident’s kitchen ceiling. Had the landlord acted sooner and fixed the leak “urgently” as it had indicated it would, this event may have been avoided. Instead, the landlord’s failure to act meant a particularly vulnerable resident experienced what would have been a significantly distressing event.
The contractor who attended the resident’s property on 13 June 2021 told the resident they would raise another urgent repair for the kitchen and bathroom. Therefore, the relevant repairs policy suggests the contractor should have attended again within 3 working days. However, a contractor did not return until 14 working days later on 2 July 2021 to make the ceiling safe. While at this stage the leak in the bathroom may have been fixed, the resident was living in a property without a kitchen ceiling, exposed wires, and damp. The contractor did not begin work to fix the damaged kitchen ceiling and other associated remedial work some 25 working days after the representative had reported it, on 19 July 2021. This demonstrated another substantial failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s explanation that delays were somewhat caused by miscommunication and “mislaying” a property assessment are not a reasonable response to the substantial delays the resident experienced. The representative had contacted the landlord on multiple occasions after the first report in May 2021, however the landlord did not attend the property until they reported the ceiling had collapsed. The regular request for updates following the initial report in May 2021 should have prompted the landlord to act and attend the resident’s property, but it did not.
The Ombudsman has also acknowledged the issues raised regarding rubbish left at the resident’s property and the alternative accommodation (hotel). The representative had made 2 separate reports to the landlord about contractors leaving rubbish in the front garden of the resident’s property. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure all its contractors are responsible and considerate of residents and their properties. The landlord’s scope of services document states “residents’ homes are left clean and tidy after works have been completed”. In this case, the landlord arranged for rubbish to be removed when it was first reported. However, the same issue occurred again when contractors attended on 19 July 2021. The landlord should have communicated with the contractor prior to it attending the property on 19 July 2021, to ensure rubbish was collected and removed after the job was completed. The landlord’s failure to do so meant the resident was left with damaged grass in the front garden and it did not leave the property “clean and tidy”, as the repairs policy requires. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made an order for additional compensation later in this report.
It is unclear from the evidence provided how the issue regarding the alternative accommodation occurred. The representative has suggested the landlord failed to make a reservation at the hotel for the resident, which meant they had to pay for the stay. However, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether this was an error caused by the landlord or the hotel. It is also unclear whether the landlord has reimbursed the representative for the costs incurred by paying for the alternative accommodation. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to reimburse these costs, after being provided with a receipt (if it has not done so already). The landlord had agreed to pay for hotel accommodation so it should reimburse the representative for the reasonable cost of this.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer alternative accommodation whilst the repairs were carried out at the resident’s property. However, the Ombudsman has determined the landlord should have arranged this sooner. The resident should have been decanted (temporarily moved) from the property on the date when the collapsed ceiling was reported up until the date when repair work was completed. Failing to do so meant the resident had been living in a property with a potentially unsafe kitchen and bathroom. It would have been reasonable of the resident to avoid using these rooms due to the damage that had been caused by the leak, and the potential dangerousness of exposed wires and damp flooring/ceiling. With this in mind, the Ombudsman has made an order for a rent rebate. The resident should not be expected to pay the full rent for the property if part of it was effectively unusable.
The Ombudsman has found that the offer of £1176.92 made by the landlord fell short of putting things right for the resident. The Ombudsman considers that a 25% rent rebate for the kitchen and a 25% rent rebate for the bathroom is appropriate for a period of 7 weeks. The number of weeks has been calculated by considering the period between the representative’s report of the ceiling collapsing on 12 June 2021 and the date the representative was able to return to the property, after work had been completed. The calculation is based on the basic weekly rent set out in the tenancy agreement, which has not been provided to the Ombudsman. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to calculate the rent rebate using the above percentages and period of weeks.

The associated offer of compensation

The landlord made an offer of compensation to the resident for distress, time and trouble, and damage to personal belongings. The offer was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and amounted to £1176.92. While the landlord has shown willingness to put things right for the resident by providing compensation, the Ombudsman must determine whether the amount it has offered is fair and proportionate to any failings identified during this investigation.
The Ombudsman has identified substantial delays in the landlord addressing the reported issues at the resident’s property, at both the initial report of a leak and the report of the kitchen ceiling collapsing. These delays meant a resident, which the landlord acknowledged as being “very vulnerable”, was living with these issues for almost 3 months. The evidence shows the representative had been regularly contacting the landlord to request updates on the status of the repairs and had been told on multiple occasions that they were being treated as “urgent”. However, the Ombudsman is not satisfied the landlord’s subsequent actions were urgent or within a reasonable timescale and left the resident living with understandable safety concerns at the property.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance (published on our website). In line with the remedies guidance, the Ombudsman has found the offer of £1176.92 compensation made by the landlord to be reasonable in addressing the substantive issues of this case, aside from the failure to arrange alternative accommodation sooner. The remedies guidance recommends amounts of £1000 and above where there have been significant failings by the landlord, which have had serious long-term or permanent detrimental impact on the resident. Therefore, the offer made by the landlord falls in line with what this service would award for the significant failings it identified. However, the Ombudsman has identified failings which the landlord did not appropriately address throughout its complaint process and has made orders of compensation for those failings.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s failure to arrange alternative accommodation sooner. This was not addressed by the landlord in its offer of compensation. The remedies guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact. It would understandably have been difficult and distressing for the resident to live in the property with significant repair issues for a prolonged period of time. Taking into account the landlord’s existing offer, the Ombudsman has found an additional £300 to be fair and proportionate to the impact living with the outstanding issues and not being decanted sooner would have had on the resident.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy explains how a complaint can be made and the timescales for responding. It also states the landlord has a two-stage process for complaints. The stages and relevant timescales are:
1. An acknowledgement will be sent to residents within 2 days of receiving a complaint.
2. Stage 1 – a response will be sent within 10 days.
3. Stage 2 – an acknowledgment will be sent within 2 days and a response sent within 10 days.
The representative first made a complaint to the landlord on 7 July 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the complaint being acknowledged at this stage. Instead, the landlord issued a formal stage 1 response 111 days later on 26 October 2021, demonstrating a significant failure in following its own complaint policy timescales. The delay would have caused inconvenience to the representative and the resident.
The representative requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 18 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged this request on 22 November and issued a stage 2 response 42 days later on 30 December 2021. This demonstrated another failure by the landlord in following its own complaint policy timescales.
While the landlord apologised for delays at stage 2 of the complaint process, the Ombudsman is not satisfied its response was proportionate to the substantial time the resident had to wait for a response at both stages of the complaint. The landlord failed to respond and missed an opportunity to put things right sooner for the resident. Given these findings, the Ombudsman has determined the landlord must act to put things right.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord identified delays and apologised for them in response to the representative. Therefore, this service has considered the remedies guidance mentioned earlier in this report and determined an offer of £300 to be fair and proportionate to the delays experienced by the resident in the complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reported leak and consequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the offer of £1176.92 compensation it made during its complaint process, unless this has already been paid.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident additional compensation of £700, made up of:
1. £100 for the continued failure to ensure the relevant policy was followed in relation to contractors’ conduct and the resident’s property was left “clean and tidy”.
2. £300 for the impact of failing to consider alternative accommodation sooner, leaving a vulnerable resident to live in a property with safety concerns.
3. £300 for the substantial delays in handling the associated complaint.
The landlord is also ordered to calculate and pay the resident a rent rebate of 25% of the total rent over the period of time when the repairs were ongoing, as set out earlier in this investigation.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to reimburse the reasonable cost of the alternative accommodation (hotel) which was paid for by the representative, after being provided with a receipt.
The landlord must evidence compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is also ordered to complete a case review of this complaint. The review should be carried out by a senior member of staff at director level. It should consider what lessons it can learn, with a view to improving its handling of repairs for vulnerable residents, where the seriousness of the matter and potential impact on a resident make timeliness of paramount importance. This review should also include complaint handling processes and explore the reasons for the delays in complaint responses seen in this case. The landlord must complete this review and share its findings with the resident, representative and Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

This service identified some miscommunication between the landlord, resident, and contractors during the investigation. The landlord should review its relationship with any external contractors to ensure communication is efficient and delays are avoided where possible. Where delays are not avoidable, the landlord should ensure an explanation is provided to the resident.
The landlord should run refresher training with all relevant staff on complaint handling, particularly on providing timely responses to complaints at all stages of its process.